Sitting of 16 February 1998

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

    Television Licences
    Mr. Crausby: What plans he has to reform the rules that concern the issuing of concessionary television licences. [27585]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The Government's agreement with the BBC provides for a review of future funding arrangements prior to March 2002. It will include a detailed consideration of licence concessions.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the concessionary television licence system is both unfair and over-bureaucratic? Does he accept that it would make much more sense to deliver a consistent television licence concession to all pensioners of, say, 50 per cent., or at least to link the system to ability to pay?
    Mr. Fisher: I entirely agree. The concessionary scheme which we inherited is full of anomalies, and causes a great deal of frustration and irritation to pensioners and others. I think that everybody would agree that it is highly imperfect and unsatisfactory. The distinct problem is that reforming it would simply create new anomalies and be hugely expensive—anything up to £450 million a year.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that the concessionary television licence is a classic example of an exception from which anomalies pour forth? Although that is, of course, nothing to do with the new Government, it is a long-standing irritant to so many people. There must be some review—some ordered, logical way in which to address the problem. I am sure that the Minister would get support from many Members on both sides of the House if he addressed the argument honestly, given that the BBC television licence is the best possible value for the services provided.
    Mr. Fisher: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The system is a classic example of a well-intentioned concession leading to enormous unhappiness and
    746
    problems. The best time to consider the matter will be when we very shortly look at all funding arrangements for the BBC.

    National Lottery Grants
    Mr. Barnes: What representations he has received recently concerning the distribution of national lottery grants; and if he will make a statement. [27586]
    Mr. Skinner: If he will make a statement on the equity of lottery grant distribution. [27595]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We have received more than 1,000 letters since our White Paper was published, in addition to nearly 600 direct responses. The responses were overwhelmingly in favour of our reforms of the lottery, and we are now implementing our proposals through the National Lottery Bill. Among other things, it makes provision for us to be able to ensure a fairer geographical spread of lottery awards.
    Mr. Barnes: I appreciate that many of my constituents make use of town-centre facilities, especially in Sheffield and Chesterfield, and to some extent in London, so that lottery awards to those areas also benefit my constituents. Are not poorer people much less mobile and, therefore, unable to make use of such facilities? Such maldistribution of lottery moneys, much of which is contributed by poorer people, is quite obscene. There is almost a 1,000-fold distinction between funding received in richer constituencies and in poorer ones. Hopefully, that is being tackled by my right hon. Friend's measures.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By ensuring that lottery distributary boards draw up a strategy for the deployment of lottery resources, we shall ensure that, among other things, they help to tackle social exclusion. I look forward to discussing the matter further with my hon. Friend when I meet him in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. Skinner: Some authorities—those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), Bolsover and others in Derbyshire and elsewhere—do not get a fair crack of the whip. In view of that, will my right hon. Frie nd make sure that he meets the people from Creswell crags—one of the oldest archaeological sites in the northern hemisphere—who tried to get money from the Conservative party without success? They were led up the garden path by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who was then in charge, with the result that they receive nothing like what they should. Is it too late to stop Heseltine's folly—the dome? There would then be even more money for redistribution.
    Mr. Smith: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend's constituents to discuss Creswell crags. At this stage, I cannot give any commitment on funding, but I shall be happy to discuss the matter with them.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the growing dismay in the heritage, arts and sports fields about the fact that they will be

    747
    £60 million a year less well off than they anticipated. As a result, many applications that otherwise could have been confident of success are being rejected. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the agreements he reached with the distributing bodies, because he has informed us that they have voluntarily given up that £60 million a year to put it into the new opportunities fund in advance of legislation? The arts, heritage and sports groups that spoke to me were very surprised that the councils had reached such an agreement voluntarily.
    Mr. Smith: As usual—this is her usual question—the right hon. Lady is wrong. The amount that each of the existing distributors will have over the seven years of the franchise is £1.8 billion, as was anticipated when the lottery began. No money has been taken away from that amount.
    Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to allay the growing torrent of criticism of his Department from luminaries of the arts world by making a firm commitment not to reduce the percentage of lottery proceeds devoted to the arts below what he currently intends?
    Mr. Smith: The gentle criticism expressed by one or two figures in the arts world has been related entirely to the figure that the Conservative party put into the Red Book a year ago. I have no intention whatever of reducing that figure of £1.8 billion, which the arts, heritage, sports and charities always knew that they would get.

    Digital Television (Wales)
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: If he will make a statement on the introduction of digital television in Wales. [27587]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): Digital television services, via satellite, cable and terrestrial delivery, are due to start this year throughout the UK. Current terrestrial plans will deliver digital services to 74 per cent. of the population of Wales within 16 months of the start of digital transmissions.
    Mr. Thomas: In view of the challenges facing broadcasters in Wales as a result of the implementation of digitalisation, can my hon. Friend confirm who will be the next chairman of S4C?
    Mr. Clarke: The Government have invited Ms Elan Closs Stephens to succeed Mr. Ifan Prys Edwards as chairperson of S4C from 1 April this year. Ms Stephens is a senior lecturer in the department of theatre, film and television studies at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and deputy chairman of the Welsh Language Board. We wish her well.
    Mr. Gale: The Minister will be aware that as a result of the hurried deal done between BSkyB and the Rugby Football Union during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996, there are millions of people in Wales who—with or without digital television—will be unable to watch the England v. Wales international at Twickenham, which is being broadcast only on Sky Television. While recognising the legitimate rights of sporting interests to raise money for their sports, is it not time that we
    748
    recognised that there are certain national events, such as the five nations tournament and test match cricket, which ought to be included on a limited list?
    Mr. Clarke: That is a matter for the advisory group on listed events.

    Children's Development
    Mr. Woolas: How the reforms to the national lottery will help children's development out of school hours. [27588]
    Mr. Fisher: The new opportunities fund will allocate £400 million to out-of-school-hours activities, providing new educational, creative and sporting opportunities in half of all secondary schools and a quarter of all primary schools, as well as child care for up to 1 million children.
    Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will voluntary organisations—such as Oldham Child Minders Association, which co-ordinates child care in our borough—be entitled to apply for new opportunities funding, or will only those who provide services directly be eligible?
    Mr. Fisher: Details of how the fund will operate will be released shortly.
    Mr. Tyrie: Under what statutory authority have the shadow accounts for the new opportunities fund been created?
    Mr. Fisher: Under the National Lottery Bill
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that, while he is giving with one hand, he is drawing away with the other hand opportunities for schoolchildren throughout the country to learn musical instruments? Local authorities are withdrawing their support, owing to the unacceptably tight settlements that they have been given. What does he intend to do to stop the collapse of skilled instrumental teaching in this country?
    Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman refers to a growing problem which has increased over recent years and is causing terrific difficulties for children and for the teaching of music, and he is right to draw attention to it. We believe that the new opportunities arising from the National Lottery Bill will allow us to begin to address some of those difficulties.

    Televised Test Cricket
    Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement on the future status of televised test cricket. [27589]
    Mr. Chris Smith: As my hon. Friend will know, I have established an advisory group to consider this issue in general and I expect it to publish recommendations before Easter.
    Mr. Pickthall: My right hon. Friend knows that the audience for live coverage of test matches on the BBC is about 2.5 million; that that is important for the

    749
    maintenance of enthusiasm for and participation in cricket at all levels; and that, by contrast, the audience for one-day test matches on Sky is only 413,000. Does he agree that it is absolutely vital for cricket to maintain its mass audience on television, and that it is wrong for cricket fans who cannot really afford it to be effectively blackmailed by delisting into subscribing to Sky?
    In any case, the England and Wales Cricket Board is perfectly entitled to sell broadcasting rights to the BBC and to Sky. Will my right hon. Friend champion the millions of cricket fans out there by ensuring that cricket remains free to air?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will know that at present, some cricket is on the list of events that have to be shown on free-to-air television. Lord Gordon and his team are currently reviewing the list, and one of the criteria that we have clearly set in place is that if an event has a special national resonance, and not simply a significance to those who ordinarily follow the sport concerned, it should be considered for listing. The committee will bear those principles in mind when it comes to advise me later this year.

    Public Libraries
    Ms Moran: What plans he has to develop information services in public libraries. [27591]
    Mr. Fisher: We are currently considering a report from the Library and Information Commission, which recommends the development of information technology in public libraries. We will respond to the report's recommendations soon.
    Ms Moran: I welcome that response. Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that, in some areas, access to libraries is the only access to information for many households? For example, Luton central library in my constituency was lucky enough to receive the largest grant from the Department, and grants from the Wolfson Libraries Challenge fund and Vauxhall Motors to secure access to information and information technology for households for which access to books, let alone computers, is severely limited. Will he use that as a model to ensure that resources are targeted to those in greatest need, so that there is the widest possible access to the national grid for learning?
    Mr. Fisher: I would have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that one of the greatest problems is the growing gap between the information-rich and the information-poor. The public library service can probably act most readily as a mentor to bridge that gap.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that the introduction of information technology to libraries would be a new lease of life for some of them and would attract some people who would never have dreamt of going into a library before? Will he also pay due regard to rural libraries? It is important that we make IT facilities available to them, as many of my constituents cannot afford the £1,000 to £2,000 to buy the equipment for their homes. We should not create an IT subclass, in rural areas or elsewhere, and we should not deny people the
    750
    enjoyment of junk e-mail or of the world wide web, which could provide communities with additional learning facilities.
    Mr. Fisher: Mr. Matthew Evans's commission recommends a public library network, which will meet many of the hon. Gentleman's points.

    National Lottery (Matched Funding)
    Mr. Sheerman: What steps he is taking to tackle problems encountered by groups that win lottery funding but fail to raise matched funding. [27593]
    Mr. Chris Smith: Any applicant who experiences difficulties in raising partnership funding should speak to the distributor, who will consider the best way in which to proceed in each case. Our reforms to the lottery will ensure that distributors have a more flexible approach to partnership requirements.
    Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but is not the matched funding scheme very regressive? Will he go back to his Department, knock a few civil servants' heads together and ask the following question? Why did we get into matched funding in the first place, as the poorest areas of the country have the most difficulty? As a Labour Government, we should be tackling this problem.
    The Earth centre in Doncaster is struggling to be completed because there is not so much industry there as in London and the south-east. I hope that my right hon. Friend will knock a few heads together and kick a few bottoms in his Department.
    Mr. Smith: I have already done precisely that. My hon. Friend will know that the National Lottery Charities Board requires no partnership funding whatever. He will also know that the Millennium Commission, which funds the Earth centre, had a very strict rule of 50 per cent. partnership funding. That rule was put in place by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and her predecessors. However, I am pleased to say that we are strongly encouraging the other distributors to be much more flexible about their partnership requirements, in particular to take into account the needs of projects in areas where the group proposing a project does not have ready access to private sector money.

    National Lottery (Disbursement)
    Mr. Green: If he will make a statement on his plans to change the mechanism for disbursement of lottery money. [27594]
    Mr. Fisher: The National Lottery Bill implements many of our plans to reform the distribution of lottery funds.
    Mr. Green: Will the Minister confirm what I was told by one of the existing grant-giving bodies in the south-east region—that, because of the changes proposed in the Bill, perfectly good sports and arts projects, which would previously have been approved, are being turned

    751
    down and discouraged because of the Government's desire to get their hands on money that will amount to £ 1 billion over the lifetime of this lottery licence? Will he apologise to those sports and arts bodies that want to do good in their local communities, but are being prevented from doing so by the fact that the Government are grabbing their money?
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not in the House a few minutes ago, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered the question of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). If he had been, he would have heard the answer. Each board was always going to receive £1.8 billion; that is exactly the planning total that they will receive.
    Ms Walley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the real concern in my constituency? Although larger organisations may find it easy to make applications for lottery bids, small groups find it difficult to do so. Will he ensure that such groups have a way in which to obtain help from the lottery in making their bids?
    Mr. Fisher: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is difficult for small groups and bodies to access the lottery, which is why some of the reforms in the new National Lottery Bill will be welcome—in particular, the small grants scheme.

    National Lottery (West Midlands)
    Mr. Corbett: What plans he has to make applications for lottery funding simpler for small community organisations in Birmingham and the west midlands. [27598]
    Mr. Fisher: The National Lottery Bill will help to ensure that more lottery money reaches small-scale projects in local communities throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the small grants scheme that is to be brought into being. Also, I urge my hon. Friend to consider the need in some circumstances for small local voluntary organisations to get help with revenue funding either of proposed projects or the expansion of projects, especially when that seed money can help them to develop extra funding for what they are trying to do within the community. There is a big gap between bodies such as the Royal Opera house, which can put its hand out and get millions tipped into it, and voluntary bodies doing important jobs in their communities in inner-city areas.
    Mr. Fisher: I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree. The purpose of reforming the national lottery is precisely to tackle such problems and to ensure that the benefits of the lottery get into constituencies throughout the country and right down to the grass roots—to village halls, community halls and small projects that can really benefit the quality of local community life.
    Mr. Steen: The problem is not merely in the west midlands—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question was on the west midlands—precisely that.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Forth: If he will make a statement on prospects for the British film industry. [27600]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The British film industry is undergoing a huge renaissance and the prospects for the future are better now than they have been for many years.
    Mr. Forth: I thank the Minister for that response with which I am completely satisfied.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied and I hope, therefore, that he will rejoice with me about the number of nominations for the Oscars. We wish all of them well. I hope, too, that he will join me in looking forward to the publication at the end of March of the review that I am co-chairing with Mr. Stewart Till of Polygram.
    Mr. Pike: While recognising that the British film industry has recently made many good films, can my right hon. Friend assure me that he is satisfied that the film distribution system ensures that good British films are shown everywhere in the world?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend raises a significant question. I am not satisfied with distribution outwith Great Britain or even in the domestic market. Therefore, I am extremely pleased that the sub-group that has been dealing with that important issue, realising that a number of extremely good British films are not even being seen in British cinemas, is tackling the issue with the assiduousness that my hon. Friend would expect.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister agree that one way in which to promote British films is to encourage the transition to digital television? Can he explain why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been so flabby in terms of giving up the guidelines that the Department of Trade and Industry set when I was a Minister? The aim was that we should switch after five years or when there was 50 per cent. coverage. The move to digital and encouraging films are the ways in which to stimulate the British industry and his Department has completely flunked it.
    Mr. Clarke: I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should argue that we should take television from 50 per cent. of the people and that that would improve either television or film. People in the film industry, including consumers, have a far better approach and are a great deal better informed about those matters than the hon. Gentleman. When he reads our report in March, he will be able to put an informed question to the House.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What progress he is making in increasing the figures for British cinema audiences watching British films. [27601]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Increasing numbers of British cinemagoers are enjoying our top British films, which have started to make a significant mark on the UK box

    753
    office. In 1997, British films almost doubled their share of UK box office takings, accounting for 23 per cent. of total box office revenues.
    Mr. Thomas: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and the number of measures that the Government are taking to boost the British film industry. Is he aware that some 50 per cent. of British films fail to get a release in this country? Will he assure the House that he will continue to monitor that situation with exhibitors and distributors, and consider the need for other measures further to boost the British film industry?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will have noticed that the objective that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set in Cannes of doubling the audience was achieved in eight months. Those of us who are concerned about the British film industry want the improved distribution that my hon. Friend mentioned. We have an excellent record. Films such as "The Full Monty", "Bean", "Regeneration", "Mrs. Brown" and others are a credit to Britain. That is all the more reason to want more audiences to see such good films.
    Mr. Bercow: When did the Minister last go to the cinema, which film did he see and what was its certificate?
    Mr. Clarke: I thought that I should see "Brassed Off' again, so I saw it a second time last week. It has a 15 certificate, but some of its intellectual aspects may be above the hon. Gentleman's head.

    Theatre
    Mrs. Ellman: What plans he has to increase the proportion of public financial support for theatre which is devoted to activities. [27603]
    Mr. Fisher: As part of our reform of the national lottery, we want an increased proportion of money to be directed to arts activities rather than buildings or capital works.
    Mrs. Ellman: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do all in his power to ensure the reopening of the Playhouse theatre in Liverpool and continued proper backing for the Everyman theatre? Liverpool's theatres are a vital part of its assets. They are important to the city itself and to its continued economic regeneration. Does he agree that it is essential that equitable public funding is given to theatres throughout the north-west and the country?
    Mr. Fisher: I entirely share my hon. Friend's admiration for the work of the Playhouse and the Everyman in Liverpool. Those who love theatre will be concerned by the state of the Playhouse. We are determined to address the problems by getting money not only to the fabric of buildings, but to cultural activities. That reform of the lottery will be welcomed by Government and Opposition Members.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the D'Oyly Carte Gilbert and Sullivan opera company closed at the end of December because the Arts Council refused to put it on
    754
    its little list? It allows hundreds of other organisations that have been on the list for years and years to remain there, but refuses to save one of our great British national institutions. More than 103 Members have signed an early-day motion, but the Secretary of State and his Department have been unable to save one of the most important English light operetta companies. The chairman of the Arts Council says that it will not get on to his list for more than 100 years because so many organisations are already there. What will the Minister do to save the D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan before 2000?
    Mr. Fisher: I am aware of the matter because the hon. Gentleman led a distinguished delegation to see me about it. His advocacy was persuasive, but, as he knows from our discussion, this is a matter for the Arts Council. I gather that he also led a delegation to its chairman. I am not sure what the joy of that was.
    Mr. Steen: Useless.
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman says that it was useless. I am sure that the Arts Council will take note of his interesting comment on that meeting.
    Mr. Hanson: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to examine the possibility of cross-border funding for theatres such as my own, Theatr Clwyd, which is in Wales, but which also attracts audiences from England? Will he examine ways in which organisations such as the lottery and the Arts Council of England could help to fund theatres based in Wales that serve audiences from England?
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend has made a good point. The audience for Theatr Clwyd in Mold includes people from Stoke on Trent, like me, from Manchester and from other places. There is a funding problem not only in north and south Wales but in Scotland, and the creation of the individual nations' arts councils has not fully addressed it. We must consider it with energy and vigour.

    Press Complaints Commission
    Mr. Chope: When he plans to meet the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission to discuss its code of practice. [27604]
    Mr. Chris Smith: On 25 September 1997, I welcomed Lord Wakeham's proposals for strengthening the newspaper industry's code of practice, and added that I intended to discuss further with him protection for people in all walks of life. I propose to do so in due course.
    Mr. Chope: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered discussing with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission the possibility of extending his code of practice to cover the conduct of the Lord Chancellor? Has he considered telling the chairman that the Government are absolutely in favour of self-regulation of the press and that they do not intend to make it subject to control by the courts, as proposed in the Human Rights Bill?
    Mr. Smith: Of course that is not what is proposed in that Bill and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary

    755
    may have something to say about that subject in a few moments when he introduces its Second Reading. The code of practice for the press should apply to everyone no matter how high or how mighty and no matter what office of state that person might hold.
    Mr. Maude: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Lord Chancellor that the Human Rights Bill introduces a privacy law, or with the Prime Minister, who believes that it does not?
    Mr. Smith: The Government believe in the self-regulation of the press. We have no intention of introducing any privacy law, by the front door or the back door.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Timms:How many representations he has received from organisations concerned with drug abuse in response to the national lottery White Paper.[27606]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Of the 496 organisations that responded to the proposals in the White Paper, three were concerned with drug abuse: the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse; Liverpool drug action team; and Adfam National. A copy of the analysis of the responses to the White Paper is available in the Library.
    Mr. Timms: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that the submission of the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse made the case for a larger share of lottery funding to be directed at organisations tackling the problems of drug misuse, such as the excellent Newham drugs advice project in my area. Is my right hon. Friend sympathetic to such arguments?
    Mr. Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the activities in his constituency, and I assure him that we are sympathetic to such projects. Indeed, the Bill will confirm the Government's commitment to combat drug abuse through measures such as new opportunities, after-school clubs and our approach to young people in the healthy living centres. I hope that by working together we can deal with an extremely serious problem.

    Musical Instrument Tuition
    Mr. David Heath: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the future of musical instrument tuition.[27609]
    Mr. Chris Smith: I have had a number of discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on musical instrument tuition and a number of other matters of mutual and important interest.
    Mr. Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and I am glad that he is having such discussions. A number of extra-curricular activities connected with culture and sports in education are the province of his Department. Will he assure me that a joint action plan will be launched to ensure that musical instrument tuition is available to all pupils whatever their education authority?
    Mr. Smith: I can indeed offer the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The pattern of musical instrument tuition in our schools has been in decline for many years and it is patchy in terms of the quality of provision, as highlighted by the recent report of the Associated Board. I am now in intensive discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the board, the Performing Rights Society and others about specific proposals, which I hope to be able to introduce within the next few weeks.

    Football
    Mr. Bob Russell: If he will provide financial support for football clubs in the lower divisions of the Football League and feeder leagues to improve spectator facilities.[27611]
    Mr. Chris Smith: I recognise the importance of having good-quality spectator accommodation at all levels of football. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport was pleased to be able to announce last year that £20 million will be available to the Football Trust over the next four years from the Football Association and the national lottery to support football at all levels. I am pleased that the lottery is having such a positive impact on football generally, with our national game being the second largest beneficiary of awards to date.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the sum he has mentioned would barely pay the wages of one premier division football team; that the gap is widening between the premier league and the rest of the teams that make up the football pyramid; and that that is not in the interests of the national sport? Will he give an assurance that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that football money is spread more fairly and more evenly among all the professional clubs?
    Mr. Smith: That is precisely what that £20 million is designed to do, now that the premier league clubs have all transformed their grounds into all-seater stadiums. The job now is to get that help further down the tree to clubs below premier league level, which is precisely what the money is designed to do.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

    Management
    Mr. Loughton: What representations he has received on the advantages of the millennium dome project being run on a commercial basis by a leisure management company with expertise in this area. [27614]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): There have been no such representations since the Conservatives decided that the project could not be delivered by a private sector company and duly

    757
    nationalised it. I have every confidence in the New Millennium Experience Company and its ability to deliver a major first for Britain.
    Mr. Loughton: If the Minister is so confident about the mass appeal of the millennium dome, which has become a quasi theme park, why is he not offering the project for professional management and funding by a leisure company such as Walt Disney, which has a track record and expertise in this area, rather than depending to such a large extent on lottery funds, so that the million visitors a month he envisages enticing for a meander around the internal organs of a 150-foot silver representation of the Madonna can do so safe in the knowledge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question?"]—can do so safe in the knowledge—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear my statement last week. Will he now come to his question? There is very little time in this period.
    Mr. Loughton:—so that people can use it in the knowledge that so much public funding has not been detracted from other more worthy community-based projects?
    Mr. Mandelson rose—
    Hon. Members: What was the question?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Dispatch Box at his disposal.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am not quite sure what the question is, so all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the structure that was created by his party when it was in office has served the project well. It is a unique non-departmental public body, which has involved many private sector personnel and disciplines and I have full confidence in the company's ability to continue to perform as well as it has done to date.
    Ms Abbott: Will the Minister without Portfolio agree that running the Millennium Experience Company along commercial principles would at least have the advantage of not costing the public money? As it stands, the Millennium Experience Company is spending £750 million of what is, in effect, public money, yet to this day we have not seen interim accounts which would enable us to find out how that money is being spent.
    Mr. Mandelson: It is simply not the case that more than £750 million of public money is being spent on the project. As little as £399 million is coming from lottery funds, not from public expenditure, with the rest coming from private sector sponsors, commercial income and activities and ticket sales. I am pleased to be able to say that the prospects for private sector investment are very good, despite the report in today's Daily Mail about British Telecom. This morning, I spoke to Sir Peter Bonfield, the chief executive of British Telecom, who stated categorically, "Are we going to pull out? No, we are certainly not going to pull out." BT will not pull out because it is a company not of the old school and of the old Britain, unconfident and unambitious, but of the
    758
    future, confident and vibrant—like the new Britain we are trying to create. That is why it will remain in the vanguard of the millennium project.
    Mr. Maude: It is wonderful to hear that paean to privatisation. On the topic of expertise, as Minister with responsibility for the presentation of Government policy, how does he explain the fact that the millennium dome—the only policy for which he has direct responsibility—is a presentational disaster that deepens every day?
    Mr. Mandelson: I do not accept for one moment that it is a presentational disaster. I only wish that Conservative Members—who say that they support the project but do everything that they can to impede its progress—would choose to support a national project that will be a tremendous success for our country.

    Regional Content
    Mr. Mitchell: If he will make a statement on the regional content of the millennium experience.[27615]
    Mr. Mandelson: The overarching theme of the experience—"Time to make a Difference"—will encourage participation by individuals in all areas of the United Kingdom through a national programme of events and activities, which will be reflected in the dome's contents.
    Mr. Mitchell: I hope that, as a fellow northern MP, the Minister will try to ensure that there is a substantial measure of regional content in the experience itself—something beyond fish and chips and avocado mousse. It will be a disaster if that huge statue becomes known as the angel of the south—which, being androgynous, may well be what happens. I wonder whether he shares my hope that he, as a Minister, will stay with the project and eschew all promotion offers. One Minister should be accountable for the project from start to finish, and I am sure that no one has a better prospect than he of making a success of it, or of telling us that it has been a success if it has not.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that the Prime Minister will take my hon. Friend's advice on this, as he does on so many other matters. As for the Angel of the North—which, I should remind the House, yesterday started its journey from Hartlepool—we should not underestimate the public in considering great ventures. The public recognise vision and imagination, and they know how to take pride in another British first. Just as that has been the case with the angel of the north, so it will be with the millennium dome.
    Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a focus of the dome's contents will be a giant-size reclining statue? Will he tell the House out of what substance the statue will be made, and whether it will be male, female or gender neutral?
    Mr. Mandelson: I really do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's fun: I will let him wait a little longer, if he does not mind, for those matters to be fully determined. All I know is that it will be a very fine figure indeed, creating opportunities of great educational value and inspiration for all those who have the chance to travel round its body.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there are loads of people in Britain who have not been

    759
    carried away with the type of enthusiasm that he displays for the millennium dome, which was a folly of the Tory Government when it began its journey? Has the dome passed the financial point of no return? Is there still a possibility of saving some of that money so that it can be spent, for example, on a millennium hospital—rather than on Heseltine's folly?
    Mr. Mandelson: No. The funds that were set aside by Parliament for the millennium celebration could not otherwise be spent on education or hospitals. It is worth reminding the House that only 20 per cent. of the Millennium Commission's expenditure on the millennium celebrations is being devoted to the dome, and that 80 per cent. is being devoted to major, landmark projects and to tremendous investment in community organisations, projects and enrichment in every part of the United Kingdom.

    Visitors
    Mr. David Heath: What estimate he has made of the number of people from the south-west of England who will visit the millennium experience.[27616]
    Mr. Mandelson: The New Millennium Experience Company estimates that 12 million visits will be made to the millennium experience. Well over 8 million of those will be from the United Kingdom, and I hope that very many of those will come from the south-west.
    Mr. Heath: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised if I told him that I cannot find a single one of my constituents in Somerset who has the slightest intention of going to south-east London? Will he accept that, if some hon. Members are not enthusiastic about the millennium dome, it is not because we are philistines or because we lack any vision or imagination, but simply because we have a different set of priorities?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman probably underestimates his own constituents. I think they are capable of being challenged and inspired by this great celebration, and I look forward to welcoming very many of them to Greenwich to the millennium dome.

    The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
    CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

      Ethical Investment
      Ann Clwyd: What recent review the Church Commissioners have undertaken on ethical investment.[27624]
      Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners' investments have always been subject to ethical criteria and are continually reviewed. The ethical investment working group, set up in 1994, plays an important part in developing the ethical investment policy of the Commissioners and of the Church's two other main central investing bodies, the Central Board of Finance and the Church of England Pensions Board.
      Ann Clwyd: As the Church has considerable investment in GKN, which is the parent of a company called Glover Webb, which both manufactures and sells armoured personnel carriers and water cannon to Indonesia, where they have been used against unarmed civilians in peaceful protests, may I suggest that the Church reconsiders its investment in GKN?
      Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's interventions and we shall take her up on that and have a look at that investment, but I should tell the House that the Commissioners do not invest in companies whose management practices are judged by us to be unacceptable. We have a clear policy in relation to the sale of armaments. Although armaments are avoided, we believe that some investment in the defence industry is justifiable, and the Church generally accepts the rights of nations to defend themselves and to engage in peacekeeping initiatives, and believes in the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: When the leaders of the Anglican Church around the world meet this year at the Lambeth conference, will they have on their agenda an agreement about a policy on ethical investment which will bind all the Churches of the Anglican communion around the world in unanimous agreement? If not, will he use his best endeavours to ensure that that is put on the agenda, so that what we do can be acceptable to our sisters and brothers all over the world?
      Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I will convey his question to Lambeth palace and give him a response. The ethical investment policy of the Church Commissioners has moved towards a more positive ethical assessment of the companies in which we invest. For example, we seek to invest in companies that will successfully develop their business financially in the interests of their shareholders, but which also demonstrate responsible employment practices and are conscientious concerning issues of corporate governance and human rights. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken.

      Clergy
      Mr. Baker: What plans he has to transfer resources from higher-paid clergy to lower-paid clergy.[27625]
      Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in Church matters, and I look forward to meeting him, with the Church Commissioners, later this week. In its debate in December 1995, the general synod

      761
      upheld the principle of clergy differentials, and the commissioners, as the Central Stipends Authority, are required by legislation to
      "have due regard to any resolution of the General Synod in respect of matters of general stipends policy."
      Mr. Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman feel comfortable with the fact that the average bishop costs £124,000 and that bishops' salaries and other costs account for 10 per cent. of Church Commission funds? At the same time, many at the sharp end are living in near poverty on a pittance. Is this a case of, "To them that have, more shall be given"?
      Mr. Bell: We are always interested in and concerned about those living at the sharp end. The commissioners' statutory obligations include supporting the bishops and the cathedrals, as well as the service pensions of all former parochial clergy. The commissioners also seek to maximise the sums provided for the support of the ministry in poorer parishes. We have released about £14 million a year—money that is currently directed to the needier dioceses for this very purpose.
      Mr. Pike: Is there any truth in the rumour that the bishops of Liverpool and Southwark have not yet been appointed so as to fill clergy vacancies lower down? Is there any other good reason why those posts have not yet been filled?
      Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the question, but the appointment of bishops is entirely a matter for the Prime Minister. I would not wish to pursue a path that would lead me straight to 10 Downing street.
      Mr. Lansley: Have the Church Commissioners undertaken any assessment of the implications of the introduction of a national minimum wage for Church of England clergy? How, for instance, is the record keeping to be undertaken; what will the costs of compliance be; and to what extent are clergy's stipends likely to be directly affected?
      Mr. Bell: I am happy to tell the House that the clergy are well enough paid to avoid the national minimum wage—but the point is a good one. We shall take it up and keep it under review.

      European Convention on Human Rights
      Mr. Bradshaw: What representations he has received about the effect on Church finances of incorporating the European convention on human rights.[27626]
      Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in Church affairs. The European convention on human rights enshrines the right of religious freedom as well as other rights. I have had a number of representations raising various issues relating to the effect on the Church of making the European convention directly enforceable by the United Kingdom courts.
      Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that human rights do not come free? Does he also therefore agree that it is unacceptable that the Church, of all organisations, should seek exemption from the Human Rights Bill?
      Mr. Bell: Concern has been expressed in a number of quarters to the effect that the definition of "public authority" in the Bill will mean the Church of England and other Churches finding themselves subject to decisions of the courts on doctrinal matters. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about these anxieties; he will refer to them in his opening remarks on Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill, which is to begin shortly.

      Land Assets
      Mr. Chope: If he will make a statement on the commission's policy on management of land assets.[27627]
      Mr. Stuart Bell: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Church does not own property in his constituency. The prime responsibility of the Church Commissioners is to manage all the investments entrusted to them so as to maximise financial support for the ministry of the Church of England. Subject to that responsibility, the commissioners' policy is to manage their land assets in a way that takes account of the needs of the environment and local communities.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful for that reply. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a hot issue relating to the churchyard of St. Mary's church in Southampton? It has been a site of worship for a thousand years; there is a Saxon burial ground there. The parochial church council and the team rector propose, however, to develop the churchyard as part of an inner-city redevelopment scheme. That is causing massive local concern. Will the hon. Gentleman agree to receive a deputation from people who are worried about this but who do not seem to have the ear of the team rector?
      Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to raise a matter of concern to his constituents. The Church Commissioners will be glad to look at any representations he makes and to see what response we can give.

    MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
    The Minister was asked—
    MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

      Cost
      Mr. Baker: If he will assess the possibility of creating a worthwhile millennium dome project at a significantly lower cost. [27619]
      Mr. Mandelson: The Government undertook a thorough review of the project immediately after the election. That concluded that it was not possible to create such a unique, once-in-a-lifetime project at lower cost. Only half the cost is being met from lottery money, and the cost includes the national programme, which will start a year in advance of the opening of the dome.
      Mr. Baker: Can the Minister explain why the millennium project is costing £758 million, when the former creative director, Stephen Bayley, said that something stunning could be created for £100 million?
      Mr. Mandelson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I do not think that Mr. Bayley's advice on that aspect is any better than he was qualified to offer on any other aspect of the millennium dome, which is why he is not still with us.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that there is growing unease among the constituents of many hon. Members that the millennium dome might become a monument to Mammon, and that we might lose sight of the fact that part of the purpose of themillenniumis—coincidentally, it would seem—to celebrate the
      764
      2000th anniversary of the birth of Christ? Should there not be some reflection of that in all the celebrations, and particularly in the millennium dome?
      Mr. Mandelson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The millennium project is not a monument to Mammon. It is an opportunity for people to take stock, to pause and to reflect on the nature of our society in all its dimensions—spiritual as well as any other—and to consider what sort of country and society we want to live in as we enter the new century and the new millennium. In that sense the project will be inspiring and challenging, as well as enormous fun.

Points of Order
3.31
Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister without Portfolio mentioned previously that he proposed to make an announcement—on Tuesday next week, I think—about the contents of the millennium dome. The matter was raised with you last week. Have you received any indication from Ministers whether the House will be the first to know what the contents of that great project will be, or whether that will be announced in a press conference or unveiling outside? Given the huge amounts of public money, whether taxpayers' or lottery money, to be spent on it, I am sure that you would agree that the House should hear first.
Madam Speaker: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the response that I gave to the point of order last Thursday. The answer to his second question is no, I have not heard that a Minister is prepared to make a statement next week, but I am told that on the morning of the day that a statement is to be made.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a criticism of you, but that was the first time that we have had 10 minutes of questions to the Minister without Portfolio. Those of us who strongly support the millennium dome and project feel that very few of the hon. Members who were called for questions and supplementaries take our view, which is the overwhelming view of both sides of the House. We feel that we are not getting our fair share of the 10 minutes at Question Time.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put the point to the President of the Council on Thursday, so that we get even more time with the Minister without Portfolio.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that several hon. Members attended the House in the hope of raising questions specifically related to questions on the Order Paper and were frustrated from doing so by the absence of hon. Members whose questions were on the Order Paper—in my own case, relating to lottery distribution in East Anglia. Can you offer us some protection or assistance in that respect, to ensure that we can raise questions when questions are on the Order Paper and are not withdrawn beforehand?
Madam Speaker: I can do nothing about questions that are withdrawn, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman tabled a question about East Anglia. Is that the point that he is making? [Interruption.] Hon. Members should table questions to get the answers that they require, and not rely
766
on the substantive questions of other hon. Members. I am not prepared to go on calling supplementary questions so that hon. Members can come into the House and latch on to the substantive questions of other hon. Members. They must take the initiative themselves. I thought that I had made that clear last week.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday 13 February, in column 740 of Hansard, I referred to a question that the Foreign Secretary had answered earlier in the week. It reads:
"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?"—[Official Report, 13 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 740.]
That question was not replied to in the Adjournment debate—which is not a matter for the House on a point of order. However, on Sunday's "The World at One" programme from Chatham House, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, appeared to give the impression—it is difficult to follow his exact words—that no such watertight undertaking had been given.
Have you, Madam Speaker, had any requests from the Foreign Office to clarify that crucial question? Have you received any requests from the Foreign Office to put an explanation in the Library before tomorrow's debate of the legal reply to Mr. Marc Weller from the centre for international studies at Cambridge and other international lawyers who challenge the legal validity in international law of the proposed military action against Iraq?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate and understand that I have no responsibility for outside broadcasts or for what is said in those broadcasts. In answer to the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, I have received no indications from Ministers about a statement to be made today or tomorrow, or what they might say in the course of the debate tomorrow. It will be for the hon. Gentleman and others who are interested to press the points that he has just made. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments and may relay them to Ministers at the Foreign Office.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you allow me simply to defend those who were unable to attend Question Time today? You may not be aware that many hon. Members are stuck on British Rail trains and cannot get into London in time to attend Question Time. Many Members from the north of England, including me, have missed Question Times because of Railtrack and the rail operators.
Madam Speaker: I do not want this to be a debate between the hon. Gentleman and myself, but there are telephones on railway stations and on trains. Many hon. Members withdraw their questions at the last moment because they are in exactly that position.

Orders of the Day

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Three hundred and nine years ago, Parliament enacted the 1689 Bill of Rights. That Bill delineated the relationship between Parliament, the Crown and the courts. It was a foundation stone of representative government, curbing unelected power and establishing a constitutional monarchy. One reflection of that is in the mutual respect shown by Her Majesty and the House. So I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Human Rights Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  This is the first major Bill on human rights for more than 300 years. It will strengthen representative and democratic government. It does so by enabling citizens to challenge more easily actions of the state if they fail to match the standards set by the European convention. The Bill will thus create a new and better relationship between the Government and the people.
  Nothing in the Bill will take away the freedoms that our citizens already enjoy. However, those freedoms alone are not enough: they need to be complemented by positive rights that individuals can assert when they believe that they have been treated unfairly by the state, or that the state and its institutions have failed properly to protect them. The Bill will guarantee to everyone the means to enforce a set of basic civil and political rights, establishing a floor below which standards will not be allowed to fall. The Bill will achieve that by giving further effect in our domestic law to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European convention on human rights.
  The convention is a treaty of the Council of Europe, now a body of some 40 countries. The Council was established at the end of the second world war as part of the allies' programme to reconstruct civilisation on the mainland of Europe. The United Kingdom was a prime mover in the convention and played a major and dignified part in its drafting. One of its draftsmen, David Maxwell Fyfe, later became, as Lord Kilmuir, a distinguished Lord Chancellor in the Conservative Government from 1954 to 1962. The United Kingdom was also among the first countries to sign the convention, which we did on the first available day. We were the first to ratify it, in March 1951.
  The United Kingdom's international commitment to the convention has continued ever since. In 1966, we accepted the right of individuals to bring cases against the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has also set a
  768

  good example in responding to any adverse findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. For nearly 50 years, there has been broad political support for what the convention does and what it stands for, with a fundamental recognition that, in practice, decisions of the Strasbourg court must be implemented.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Home Secretary not recognise that, under existing legal arrangements, the Government can derogate under exceptional circumstances and, on one occasion involving terrorist suspects, did so? Can he see no occasion—not even the matters that we will debate tomorrow—on which a democratically elected Government might feel the need to depart from the findings of the European Court and, with the consent of Parliament, pass a law that changes that?
  Mr. Straw: I can indeed. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the derogation to which he refers is enshrined in schedule 2 to the Bill, on page 19.
  Since the convention's drafting nearly 50 years ago, almost all the states that are party to it have gradually incorporated it into their domestic law. Ireland and Norway have not done so, but Ireland has a Bill of Rights which guarantees rights similar to those of the convention, and Norway is in the process of incorporating the convention. Several other countries with which we share our common law tradition, such as Canada and New Zealand, have provided similar protection for human rights in their legal systems.
  The effect of non-incorporation on the British people is a practical one. The rights, originally developed by Britain, are no longer seen as British, and enforcing them takes far too long and costs far too much—on average five years and £30,000 to get an action into the European Court at Strasbourg once all domestic remedies have been exhausted. Bringing these rights home will mean that the British people will be able to argue for their rights in the British courts, without inordinate delay and cost. It will also mean that the rights will be brought much more fully into the jurisprudence of the courts throughout the United Kingdom, and their interpretation will thus be far more woven into our common law.
  There will be another benefit: British judges will be enabled to make a distinctively British contribution to the development of the jurisprudence of human rights across Europe. It is also now plain that the approach that the United Kingdom has so far adopted towards the convention has not stood the test of time. The most obvious proof of that lies in the number of cases in which the European Court has found that there have been violations of convention rights in the United Kingdom. It is only natural that people of all political persuasions have asked, "Why do individuals in the United Kingdom have to go to Strasbourg to enforce their British rights? Why can they not rely on them before our domestic courts?"
  In 1976, the then Labour Government published a Green Paper on this subject. In 1987, the then Conservative Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Sir Edward Gardner QC, introduced a private Member's Bill on incorporation of the convention. When doing so, he said of the language of the articles:
  "It is language which echoes…down the corridors of history. It goes deep into our history and as far back as Magna Carta."

  769
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also said:
  "If anybody suggests that these"—
  he was referring to the convention—
  "are foreign laws which are foreign to our minds and spirits, I suggest that he has not read the convention's articles."—[Official Report, 6 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 1224.]
  The baton then passed to the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who introduced two Bills on incorporation in 1994 and 1996. None of those attempts bore fruit, but they highlighted the growing consensus for change.
  It was the late John Smith who first committed Labour to the path of incorporation.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that a prominent former Conservative Minister, Sir Geoffrey Rippon, withdrew his Bill to enable me to bring before the House a Bill that had passed through another place, which was designed to achieve the same purpose. That measure had been introduced by Lord Wade. In the past, there has been much more distinctive Conservative support for such a measure than now seems apparent.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The importance of what he says, however, is that it is apparent that many Conservative Members here and in another place support incorporation in practice. Three Conservative peers spoke in favour of incorporation on Second Reading in another place.
  Following John Smith's commitment to incorporate the convention, in December 1996, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I published a consultation document entitled "Bringing Rights Home". Many people helped us with the drafting of that document, including Lord Lester, to whom I pay tribute for his indefatigable work in bringing the issue to public attention. Many others responded helpfully to the paper, and they have continued to make their knowledge and advice available to me and my colleagues. The response to our paper convinced us that we should make incorporation a manifesto commitment.
  Alongside the Bill, which had its First Reading in another place on 23 October, I published a White Paper entitled "Rights Brought Home", setting out the case for the Bill and how it would work. The Bill does not create new substantive rights, but it makes the existing convention rights more immediate and relevant. Under the Bill, all courts and tribunals will be required to have regard to these rights.
  Having decided that we should incorporate the convention, the most fundamental question that we faced was how to do that in a manner that strengthened, and did not undermine, the sovereignty of Parliament. Some had argued that the courts should have power to set aside primary legislation, whether past or future, on the ground of incompatibility with the convention. That is a feature of many, though by no means all, government systems with a basic law enshrined in a written constitution. It is also true that, under the European Communities Act 1972, enacted by the then Conservative Government, European law with direct effect automatically takes precedence over our domestic law and Parliament, whatever Parliament wants to do otherwise.
  770
  That is not the road that we are going down. The Bill, important though it is, has the limited function of bringing the British people's rights home. It is no part of the project to call into question constitutional arrangements that have evolved in this country to make us one of the world's most stable democracies.
  The sovereignty of Parliament must be paramount. By that, I mean that Parliament must be competent to make any law on any matter of its choosing. In enacting legislation, Parliament is making decisions about important matters of public policy. The authority to make those decisions derives from a democratic mandate. Members of this place possess such a mandate because they are elected, accountable and representative.
  To allow the courts to set aside Acts of Parliament would confer on the judiciary a power that it does not possess, and which could draw it into serious conflict with Parliament. As the Lord Chief Justice said on Second Reading in another place, the courts and the senior judiciary do not want such a power, and we believe that the people do not wish the judiciary to have it.
  Although the Bill does not allow the courts to set aside Acts of Parliament, it will nevertheless have an impact on the way in which legislation is drafted, interpreted and applied, and it will put the issues squarely to the Government and Parliament for future consideration. It is important to ensure that, for their part, the Government and Parliament can respond quickly.
  In the normal way, primary legislation can be amended only by further primary legislation. As we all know—in normal circumstances, this is entirely correct—that can take a long time. One of the consequences of not having a special procedure to remedy defects in legislation is a degree of paralysis. Until now, the remedy has been through the Strasbourg Court. The best example I can give, which should command the House's attention, is the decision almost two years ago of the European Court in Strasbourg in the Chahal case.
  Chahal had been detained in prison by direction of the Secretary of State because it was considered that his presence in this country was not conducive to the public good, on national security grounds. The then Home Secretary's right to make that decision without Chahal having a right of independent appeal was challenged. The matter was fought all the way to the Court in Strasbourg, which found in favour of Chahal, who then had to be released from prison.
  There was no provision, as in this Bill, for the law to continue in force unless and until it was corrected. Someone whom the previous Home Secretary had decided, on the best evidence, should be excluded from this country, on the basis that his presence here was not conducive to the public good, on national security grounds, went free. Meanwhile, it was impossible for my predecessor, and it remains impossible for me, to exercise the powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to exclude anyone from this country on national security grounds.
  The previous Government put in train preparations for an amending Act, and we have sought to get that legislation through both Houses as quickly as possible. That Bill commands support on both sides of the House, but it is taking many months to grind through all its stages. Consequently, the position that we are stuck with is to no one's advantage. Individual rights have not been

  771
  properly brought back into line with the convention; nor, as important, is any Secretary of State for the Home Department able to exercise his duties under the 1971 Act.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that hon. Members who support the principle of incorporation remain deeply concerned about the provisions of the remedial order procedure, which depend on secondary legislation Orders in Council? Can he reassure us that, in the great generality of cases, primary legislation will be amended only by primary legislation, and that the provisions in clauses 10 to 12, which deal with the affirmative resolution procedure, will be activated only in instances of real emergency? If he were able to say that, he might gain much more support in the House than would otherwise be forthcoming.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the concerns expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; they were raised in the other place and were the subject of extensive debate. I cannot give him the undertaking that he seeks. However, I can say, first, that occasions on which the courts declare an Act of this Parliament to be incompatible are rare; there will be very few such cases. Secondly, the purpose of remedial action is to try to resolve the current paralysis, which is to nobody's advantage. It is not to take away anyone's rights; it is to confer rights. Thirdly, hon. Members will have every opportunity to discuss this matter in great detail in Committee.
  In our judgment, these fast-track provisions offer far more safeguards than were provided under the European Communities Act 1972, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party supported. Under the 1972 Act, Parliament cannot vote on any declaration of the European Court of Justice that our law is outwith the ECJ; the law must be changed. Furthermore, the Bill provides a better and fairer procedure for deregulation than that laid down by the previous Administration.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I pick up what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? Many Conservative Members who sympathise with the Government's aims feel that, if the Bill is to work, the House of Commons—or, rather, Parliament—must be seen to be working with the courts to allow human rights to exist and to be enforced. We feel that any derogation—leaving aside what earlier Governments may have done, and the presence of the Henry VIII clause—is massively undesirable.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but, in Committee, I hope to convince both him and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that, in practice, the Bill will ensure that people's rights—which the courts have declared to be rights—are brought to fruition, and also that we do not repeat the position relating to Chahal, which is unsatisfactory all round. That, however, remains to be seen.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that I fully
  772
  support the Government's incorporation of the convention into domestic law, and that I have worked towards that end in the Council of Europe. May I, however, ask him to test the central point that he is making against the example that I am about to give?
  If a Government introduced legislation or other rules banning members of an organisation such as Government communications headquarters—GCHQ—from belonging to a trade union, would they be able to go to a British court immediately for a remedy that would give them the right to union membership, freedom of expression and freedom of association? If Parliament voted by a majority to prevent those people from having that right, would it be able to maintain the denial of liberties that the convention requires them to have?
  Mr. Straw: The Bill makes the position clear, in clause 4(6) and elsewhere. Clause 6 excludes the Houses of Parliament from the category of public authorities, for very good reasons. What the Bill makes clear is that Parliament is supreme, and that if Parliament wishes to maintain the position enshrined in an Act that it has passed, but which is incompatible with the convention in the eyes of a British court, it is that Act which will remain in force.
  There is, however, a separate question, which is why, in most instances, Parliament and Government will wish to recognise the force of a declaration of incompatibility by the High Court. Let us suppose that a case goes to Strasbourg, where the European Court decides that an action by the British Government, or the British Parliament, is outwith the convention. According to 50 years of practice on both sides, we always put the action' right, and bring it into line with the convention. One of the questions that will always be before Government, in practice, will be, "Is it sensible to wait for a further challenge to Strasbourg, when the British courts have declared the provision to be outwith the convention?"
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The problem for many of us is not the existence of the provision, but the fact that the Court has not an absolute right to strike down legislation. If we are to have the declaration of incompatibility, will there be a time scale within which the Government will correct the position? Otherwise, as often happens in such cases, someone who might not be the most perfect person—someone who might attract considerable moral opprobrium, and no sympathy from the community or, certainly, the popular press—might bring a case and be left dangling in regard to the correcting of the position relating to a particular right.
  Mr. Straw: I do not believe that writing a timetable into the Bill would be desirable, or consistent with the scheme of the legislation. It would challenge the sovereignty of Parliament. In practice, however—even under the current arrangements—Governments always move to remedy a matter if it has been found in Strasbourg to be outwith the convention. The best example from my hon. Friend's point of view is the decision that the European Court made in 1995 in respect of the three people—I think that they were Provisional IRA terrorists—who were shot dead in Gibraltar. The previous Government certainly did not like the decision in that case, but they acted in accordance with the judgment.

  773
  Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I should like to comment on two issues that have gained particular prominence: the positions of the media and the Churches. Both have concerns that centre on the provisions of clause 6, relating to public authorities, so I must briefly explain the principles underlying that clause.
  Under the convention, the Government are answerable in Strasbourg for any acts or omissions of the state about which an individual has a complaint under the convention. The Government have a direct responsibility for core bodies, such as central Government and the police, but they also have a responsibility for other public authorities, in so far as the actions of such authorities impinge on private individuals.
  The Bill had to have a definition of a public authority that went at least as wide and took account of the fact that, over the past 20 years, an increasingly large number of private bodies, such as companies or charities, have come to exercise public functions that were previously exercised by public authorities. Under UK domestic common law, such bodies have increasingly been held to account under the processes of judicial review.
  As was generally acknowledged in debates in another place, it was not practicable to list all the bodies to which the Bill's provisions should apply. Nor would it have been wise to do so. What was needed instead was a statement of principle to which the courts could give effect. Clause 6 therefore adopts a non-exhaustive definition of a public authority. Obvious public authorities, such as central Government and the police, are caught in respect of everything they do. Public—but not private—acts of bodies that have a mix of public and private functions are also covered.
  I shall now deal with the position of the media under the Bill. The convention contains two articles of particular concern to them: article 10, the right to freedom of expression, and article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. Given the concerns of the press and the Press Complaints Commission about the possible implications of incorporation for a law of privacy, it is worth pointing out that, in practice, the convention has already been extensively used to buttress and uphold the freedom of the press against efforts by the state to restrict it. There are at least four leading United Kingdom cases in which the Strasbourg Court has done that—and not one on privacy has detracted from such a line.
  I am placing in the Library a paper prepared by my Department that contains details of cases on freedom of expression. Among others, there is the 1979 case concerning The Sunday Times, where the European Court found that an injunction preventing publication by the newspaper of material on the thalidomide disaster amounted to a violation of article 10. In its judgment, the Court referred to
  "a principle of freedom of expression that is subject to a number of exceptions which must be narrowly interpreted."
  There was the 1991 "Spycatcher" case, where the European Court held that the continuation of an injunction preventing newspapers from printing excerpts from the book was contrary to article 10. In that case, the Court used the following words, with which I agree, and which I think the media would also endorse:
  "the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication for even a short period may well deprive it of all its value and interests."
  774
  I could also quote from other United Kingdom cases where article 10 has been successfully invoked—for example, the 1995 Tolstoy libel case on the amount of damages awarded in defamation actions, and the 1996 Goodwin case concerning the anonymity of press sources. There is also Strasbourg case law involving other convention countries, all supporting the view that the European Court of Human Rights accords a high value to the right to freedom of expression and recognises the crucial role of the press to a healthy democracy.
  One benefit of incorporation for the press is that United Kingdom courts will be required to take account of European Court judgments and will thereby develop more positive concepts about the right to freedom of expression.
  I emphasise that point with good reason. We have repeatedly stated our support for the freedom of the media and our opposition to a statutory law of privacy. We do not believe that the Bill is contrary to that position. We do not believe that it will lead to the courts developing the common law in a way that will inhibit legitimate press investigations into matters of public interest. Nor do we believe that it will lead the courts to issue injunctions in respect of stories in which there is a public interest in publication.
  Despite all that, I recognise that the press are bound to be alive to any possibility that their freedoms might be eroded gratuitously by legislation before the House. In turn, the Government and Parliament have a corresponding duty to seek to assuage those anxieties if we possibly can. That is precisely what we have done in respect of data protection. We have proposed legislation on data protection, not because of any manifesto commitment but because of the imperative of an EU directive passed by the previous Administration.
  The press—through the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Lord Wakeham—raised serious concerns about the impact of the data protection directive in the Bill on investigative journalism. I therefore readily agreed that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, should hold discussions about those concerns with Lord Wakeham. The outcome of those discussions was fruitful and satisfactory, and is now to be found in clause 31 of the Data Protection Bill.
  Under that clause, the duty that would otherwise be placed on the press to disclose data that they held on those they were investigating is abrogated if the data are being processed for a journalistic, literary or artistic purpose, and
  "having regard to the special importance of freedom of expression publication would be in the public interest".
  One key test of public interest in practice is whether there has been compliance with the Press Complaints Commission code—thus preserving the self-regulation of the press.
  The Human Rights Bill is, of course, different from the Data Protection Bill, but, at their root, the anxieties expressed by the media about both Bills are the same: whether they will interfere with freedom of expression; whether they will lead to much greater use of injunctions that halt publication in advance; and, in the case of the Human Rights Bill, whether the Bill itself will encourage the development of a privacy law.
  To try to allay these anxieties, Lord Williams and I have been involved in detailed discussions with Lord Wakeham. In particular, we have considered whether

  775
  safeguards similar in framework to those set out in clause 31 of the Data Protection Bill could be brought into this Bill, without compromising its essential purpose.
  I am pleased to tell the House that these discussions have borne fruit, and we have reached an understanding with Lord Wakeham, on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission, on a framework for amendments to the Bill which we believe would satisfactorily safeguard the position of the press in a way that is more comprehensive than providing an exemption for the Press Complaints Commission under clause 6.
  The precise wording of the amendments has not yet been agreed, and I should be happy to discuss their terms not only with Lord Wakeham, but with the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
  The components of such an amendment would be, first, an explicit provision that no relief or remedy is to be granted regarding article 8 on respect for private life unless the respondent is either present or represented, or the applicant has taken all practicable steps to alert the newspaper against which the application is brought—that would virtually rule out pre-publication injunctions being granted ex parte; secondly, an explicit provision that in any case in which a person applies for relief or a remedy on article 8 grounds related to respect for private life, and the granting of a remedy would raise issues concerning an article 10 convention right, the court must have particular regard to freedom of expression—this would be consistent with the jurisprudence of the European Court, which already lays great emphasis on article 10 rights, but it could also constitute a useful signal and reminder to the United Kingdom courts; thirdly, a requirement for the court—in the case of an application involving journalistic, literary or artistic material—also to take into account the extent of the public interest in the publication in question, whether the newspaper had acted fairly and reasonably, and whether it had complied with the provisions of the Press Complaints Commission's code.
  Provisions along those lines, modelled broadly on clause 31 of the Data Protection Bill, would not be inconsistent with the convention, but would send a powerful signal to the United Kingdom courts that they should be at least as circumspect as judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have been about any action that would give the article 8 rights any supremacy over the freedom of expression rights in article 10. I hope and believe that an amendment along those lines will deal satisfactorily with the concerns of the press.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Many of us will want to see the text of that amendment before coming to a judgment on it. I hope for a positive and clear answer to the following question: if my right hon. Friend seeks to make an amendment to ensure that article 8 does not have supremacy over article 10, will that amendment also ensure that article 10 does not have supremacy over article 8?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot satisfy my right hon. Friend on that matter, because to do so would plainly make the
  776
  safeguards entirely circular, and we do not want to do that. I acknowledge that he has not had the opportunity to see our amendments, and I shall be happy to show them to him in due course.
  Mr. Hogg: I welcome what the Home Secretary is saying, but does he acknowledge that, through the amendments that he wants to agree with my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, he is in reality seeking to amend the circumstances in which the courts can address the two articles? Has he asked himself whether those amendments, which would change the circumstances in which a right could be asserted under the convention, would be upheld by the Strasbourg Court, which is not bound by what he has just told the House? The judges there may well conclude that what he has just said is in itself a derogation from the convention.
  Mr. Straw: The answer is yes: we have indeed asked ourselves that question, and I said only a moment ago that we were certain that provisions along those lines would not be inconsistent with the convention and would be fully consistent with the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. As I explained, that fact was well set out in several judgments, including those on "Spycatcher" and on The Sunday Times and thalidomide. In those judgments, the European Court itself gives precedence to article 10 over article 8 when the freedom of the press and other media is involved.
  Mr. David Ruffley: In the context of articles 8 and 10, would the BBC and independent television companies be public authorities for the purposes of clause 6?
  Mr. Straw: That is ultimately a matter for the courts, but our judgment is that the BBC will be regarded as a public authority under clause 6; independent television companies will not, but the Independent Television Commission will be.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and then to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
  Mr. Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the arrangements are the only ones arrived at, and that there is no question of the Press Complaints Commission being excluded from the definition of a public authority under clause 6?
  We have before us, in the annexe that lays out the convention, a series of rights and freedoms that will be available under this legislation to all citizens of the United Kingdom. My assumption, when the Bill was introduced, was that all those rights and freedoms would be given equal weight. My right hon. Friend now appears to be telling the House—only a satisfactorily drafted amendment could possibly allay any misgivings on the matter—that the article 10 right will have greater weight than the article 8 right. Many Labour Members would be seriously disturbed by such a change.
  Mr. Straw: The answer to my right hon. Friend's first point is that we do not propose to table amendments that

  777
  would exempt any particular body, including the Press Complaints Commission, from the operations of clause 6. There are a number of reasons for that; we can go into detail in Committee. We do not believe that exemptions are the appropriate means of dealing with clause 6, about which I shall speak in a moment.
  On my right hon. Friend's second point, I ask him to look carefully at the document that I shall deposit in the Library, which sets out the development of jurisprudence by the European Court in Strasbourg on matters relating to articles 10 and 8. It is always the case that some legal concepts have greater force than others; it happens to be the case that the European Court has given much greater weight to article 10 rights of freedom of expression than to article 8 rights to privacy. We want to reflect that in our domestic law.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I promised the hon. Member for Aldershot that I would let him intervene, after which, if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will forgive me, I must continue; many hon. Members want to speak in this debate.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Obviously, we need to see the detail of his proposals on how to reconcile articles 8 and 10. However, I am not clear about his proposals on injunctions that are sought ex parte in advance of publication. As he knows, once something defamatory has appeared in print, it is difficult to undo any damage that may have been caused. Does he intend, in effect, to abolish a citizen's right to seek an injunction in advance of publication?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is talking about ex parte injunctions in cases of defamation, but the Bill does not deal with the law on defamation; it deals with convention rights. It will ensure that it is extremely difficult to gain an ex parte injunction without notice in cases concerning convention rights. That is entirely right and proper in the circumstances that we have laid out, and it is also entirely consistent with the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court in the case that I have already cited.
  The Churches have expressed concerns about the Bill's impact on them if they are held to be public authorities in carrying out some of their activities—for example, in conducting marriage ceremonies or running religious schools. They fear that the convention rights will be used against them, so that they will have to carry out those activities in contravention of their religious beliefs. As introduced in another place, the Bill did not require them to act against their conscience. In particular, it could not be used to require the Churches to conduct marriages between homosexual couples or divorcees, or to appoint atheists as head teachers of Church schools.
  The convention places great store by religious freedom. Indeed, article 9 guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We therefore think that the Churches have much to gain from the convention rights being given further effect in our law. None the less, before coming to a final conclusion on the amendments
  778
  that were made in another place, I shall be happy to discuss those questions further with representatives of the Churches, and I shall put arrangements in hand to do so.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way, as I am anxious to proceed.
  I shall now deal briefly with the detail of the Bill and explain exactly how it will bring rights home. Clause 1 lists the convention rights to which the Bill will give further effect in our domestic law. Clause 2 ensures that, in giving effect to those rights, our domestic courts and tribunals have regard to Strasbourg jurisprudence.
  Clause 3 provides that legislation, whenever enacted, must as far as possible be read and given effect in such a way as to be compatible with convention rights. We expect that, in almost all cases, the courts will be able to interpret legislation compatibly with the convention. However, we need to provide for the rare cases where that cannot be done. Consistent with maintaining parliamentary sovereignty, clause 3 therefore provides that if a provision of primary legislation cannot be interpreted compatibly with the convention rights, that legislation will continue to have force and effect.
  A declaration of incompatibility will not affect the continuing validity of the legislation in question. That would be contrary to the principle of the Bill. However, it will be a clear signal to Government and Parliament that, in the court's view, a provision of legislation does not conform to the standards of the convention. To return to a matter that I discussed earlier, it is likely that the Government and Parliament would wish to respond to such a situation and would do so rapidly. We have discussed how that would operate and no doubt there will be further detailed discussions in Committee on the Floor of the House.
  Clauses 6 to 9 cover the second main way by which the Bill gives effect to the convention rights. Clause 6 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right, unless they are required to do so to give effect to primary legislation. I have already discussed the approach that we have taken in the Bill to defining a public authority.
  Clause 7 enables individuals who believe that they have been a victim of an unlawful act of a public authority to rely on the convention rights in legal proceedings. They may do so in a number of ways: by bringing proceedings under the Bill in an appropriate court or tribunal; in seeking judicial review; as part of a defence against a criminal or civil action brought against them by a public authority; or in the course of an appeal. Clause 7 ensures that an individual will always have a means by which to raise his or her convention rights. It is intended that existing court procedures will, wherever possible, be used for that purpose. Clause 8 deals with remedies.
  Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to press on.
  If a court or tribunal finds that a public authority has acted unlawfully, it may grant whatever remedy is available to it that it considers just and appropriate.

  779
  Clause 9 serves two main functions. It preserves the general principle of judicial immunity when a court or tribunal is found, or alleged, to have acted in a way that is made unlawful by clause 6, and it provides for the possibility of damages being awarded against the Crown in respect of a judicial act, to the extent necessary to comply with article 5(5) of the convention.
  Clause 13 confirms that a person's reliance on a convention right does not restrict any other right or freedom that he enjoys under United Kingdom law. Clauses 14 to 17 cover derogations from, and reservations to, the articles of the convention and its associated protocols. Clause 18 is concerned with the appointment of judges to the Strasbourg Court.
  Clause 19 is a further demonstration of our determination to improve compliance with convention rights. It places a requirement on a Minister to publish a statement in relation to any Bill that he or she introduces. The statement will either be that the provisions of the legislation are compatible with convention rights or that he or she cannot make such a statement, but that the Government nevertheless wish to proceed with the Bill.
  I am sure that Ministers will want to make a positive statement whenever possible. The requirement to make a statement will have a significant impact on the scrutiny of draft legislation within Government and by Parliament. In my judgment, it will greatly assist Parliament's consideration of Bills by highlighting the potential implications for human rights.
  Finally, clauses 20 to 22 deal with various supplemental matters with which we need not detain the House.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry to interrupt again, but my right hon. Friend has gone through the clauses and, as is the usual practice, has not found it necessary to refer to the schedule. In schedule 1, at the top of page 18, paragraph 2 of article 10 states that "the exercise" of "freedoms"
  "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society",
  and goes on to state that such provisions include
  "the protection of the reputation or rights of others",
  and
  "preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".
  Will he explain the significance of the word "and" in line 3? Does the "and" combine "necessary in a democratic society" with "prescribed by law"?
  Mr. Straw: Yes. That is usually how such matters are interpreted, particularly as there is no comma between "by law" and "and". Although I defer, of course, to our learned friends in the Strand, I think that I can give my right hon. Friend a clear and categorical answer to that question.
  The Opposition amendment seeks to block the Bill's Second Reading on three main grounds: that it will further increase the power of the Executive; that it will diminish Parliament; and that it will politicise the judiciary. As I hope I have shown, none of them has any serious foundation.
  780
  The power of the Executive will be reduced by the Bill because the state will be made far more accountable for its acts and omissions to its citizens. The Bill enhances parliamentary sovereignty in practice, and the scheme that we have chosen ensures that the judiciary will not be involved in politics.
  It is interesting that none those concerns cut any ice with the then Conservative Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, Sir Edward Gardner, when he introduced his Bill on incorporation 11 years ago. More than 50 Conservative Members voted for it, with four members of the present Conservative Front-Bench team, including the shadow Health Secretary. The only difference between the two Bills is that this one gives far greater protection to the sovereignty of Parliament.
  There is another matter that the Opposition may have forgotten in tabling their amendment. In 1977, the architect of modern Conservatism, Lady Thatcher, supported the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. She had the then Mr. Leon Brittan move amendments to the Scotland Bill to do that. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position it is said that Lady Thatcher was not always right, but many Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen think that she was always right.
  If the Conservatives were correct then, why are they wrong now? We not only have the benefit of Lady Thatcher' s views on incorporation 20 years ago, but, just four months ago, we had the view of the shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland. On the day that the Bill was published, he said in a radio interview that he was "satisfied" with it. He added:
  "From my vantage point we are not in principle against incorporation. The two concerns that we have about it, first of all, parliamentary sovereignty, and secondly, too big a shift of power from Parliament to judges. These concerns do not appear to be serious ones in the context of this Bill."
  What makes the amendment all the more puzzling is the question of where the Tories intend to go next on the issue. Our Bills meets their concerns.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Secretary was pushing his luck a bit when he talked about Mrs. Thatcher. As he made great play of Sir Edward Gardner's Bill, does he recall that she instructed our former colleague Sir Patrick Mayhew, then Solicitor-General, to oppose it?
  Mr. Straw: No. I recall what the then Leader of the Opposition required Mr. Leon Brittan to do and what she said in the 1977 Conservative campaign guide and in Hansard of 13 January 1976 about the need to enshrine the Bill of Rights in the devolution statute.
  I know that the Conservatives press the self-destruct button with alarming regularity but the question is where they are going to go next. Are they really going to go into the next general election on the promise, "Vote Conservative and we will take away your human rights"? Is that to be the badge of the modern Tory party?
  Let me conclude by placing the Bill in a wider setting. Our manifesto commits us to a comprehensive programme of constitutional reform. It has four objectives: decentralised government; responsive government; open and honest government; and modernised government. The Bill falls squarely within

  781
  that constitutional programme. It is a key component of our drive to modernise our society and refresh our democracy. It is part of a blueprint for changing the relationship between the Government and people of the United Kingdom to bring about a better balance between rights and responsibilities, between the powers of the state and the freedom of the individual. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.28 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  this House, while confirming its strong belief in human rights, expresses its deep concern at the constitutional implications and deficiencies of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] because the Bill weakens one of the foundations of everyone's human rights and fundamental freedoms, which is an effective political democracy; because the Bill creates in the United Kingdom an additional, separate, and potentially incompatible, constitutional framework; because the Bill fails adequately to respect and maintain the principle of separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary fundamental in a democratic society and will therefore lead to a further increase in the power of the executive, the diminution of Parliament, and the politicisation of the judiciary; and declines to give the Bill a Second Reading."
  In a long and closely argued speech, the Home Secretary dealt in some detail with the main provisions of the Bill. As I hope to show, however, he conveniently skated over the importance of such issues as sovereignty and the fast-track approach and also the definition of a public authority. The House will have also noticed his total silence on the role of the Lord Chancellor, to which we will return.
  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's initial comments that, for many years, there has been broad political agreement on the issue. I should like to confirm that again. The Conservative party's commitment to human rights is just as strong as that of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of the day. Our commitment to the European convention on human rights is as strong as his and that of the Government of the day. I am happy to put that on the record. In common with the right hon. Gentleman, I recognise that the convention reflects rights, freedoms and liberties that have long been embodied in the statutes and common law of the United Kingdom.
  If I may offer a slightly broader interpretation of human rights, in the past 18 years our Conservative Government extended human rights as my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher worked with President Reagan—with the intermittent support of the Labour party—to free eastern Europe. That led to the removal of the Berlin wall and enabled human rights to be experienced in a way that had not been known previously in that part of Europe.
  With the support of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) helped to extend human rights in Kuwait after its invasion. Without any help from the Labour party, our Government extended the human rights of trade unions by removing the closed shop.
  People like the Lord Chancellor, of whom I would have expected it, and the Home Secretary, of whom I would not have expected it, who wish to promote the line that the convention should be incorporated into United Kingdom law, often pray in aid the so-called fact that the number of court judgments given against the United
  782
  Kingdom, at 50, is second only to Italy, at 98, and just ahead of France, at 43. Such people, including the Home Secretary, fail to make a proportionate judgment about those figures. He should recognise that if a country has been a signatory for a long time, it is more likely to have been exposed to adverse decisions than a country that has recently become a signatory. The size of the country is also a factor in such matters. When one takes account of the size of the population and the length of time that a country has been a signatory, the number of human rights violations per 100,000 of the population per annum suggests that there are 12 countries with a worse human rights record than the United Kingdom in terms of decisions of the Court. That provides a different picture from that painted by the Home Secretary.
  Incorporation of the convention into domestic law is no guarantee of a good record in human rights, as the records of a number of countries with a Bill of Rights show.
  As part of the background to the Bill, it is also worth putting it on the record that in nearly 40 years of convention application, primary legislation has been brought forward in this country only 10 times in order to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
  We strongly support the convention and as the right hon. Gentleman recognised, when in government, the Conservative party has always complied with the Court's judgment. In 1996, the right hon. Gentleman issued a document entitled "Bringing Rights Home", in which he stated on page 10:
  "There are no cases where a UK Government has failed to act in response to an adverse Strasbourg ruling."
  With the Bill, the Government want to incorporate the convention into British law. They argue, as the Home Secretary argued, that cases could be brought more quickly and more cheaply; that the convention would better respect our traditions and way of life and that the United Kingdom would have more influence over the European Commission. We support all those aims, but they can be met—indeed, they are already being met—without incorporating the convention into British law.
  I was surprised that the Home Secretary did not refer to the position taken by the Conservative Government. We believed that it was better to reform the European institutions than to incorporate the convention, which is why we supported protocol 11. No doubt, in Committee, we can explore the Government's view on protocol 11. Once signed by all member states, that protocol will abolish the European Commission of Human Rights and create a single court that can decide both the admissibility and the merits of a case. It will also divide the court into a number of committees and chambers and so reduce legal costs and enable it to deal with cases more quickly.
  We also believe that the convention should be applied in a way that is sensitive to our way of life. Currently, the European Court does not put judgments into effect: that is the responsibility of our elected Members of Parliament, who ensure that its judgments are implemented in a way that respects our culture and traditions. That will be changed by the Bill.
  We agree that our system of law has much to offer the Court. As the Home Secretary said, the convention was drafted by two British Government lawyers and the

  783
  UK was one of the original signatories, but there is no reason why the Court should not currently refer to our common law.
  Why has the Bill been introduced? The Lord Chancellor is the midwife. Lord Lester of Herne Hill said in another place:
  "I should like to pay tribute to the great and crucial contribution of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor"—
  I understand why reference to the Lord Chancellor embarrasses the Home Secretary, but I fear that there will be more embarrassment before I sit down—
  "both when in Opposition in convincing the Labour party of the case for incorporation and now as Lord Chancellor in helping the Home Secretary and his other colleagues to shape the Bill. Indeed, many of its provisions are stamped with his powerful and personal imprint."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 1709, c. 1238.]
  We know whence the driving force behind the Bill comes, even though it is a Home Office Bill. Normally in our history the thought that a Bill was being advanced by the Lord Chancellor would add to the confidence with which many would view it—but not this Lord Chancellor. He is a man to whose head power has positively rushed—a man who thinks nothing of spending huge sums of public money for his own style and comfort and does not mind adding to the relevant works contracts a clause requiring the signing of the Official Secrets Act. How ironic that a man who lectures us on the importance of freedom of information and of giving people rights to hold the Government in check should behave in such a fashion. Well, he has made his £10,000 bed and he will have to lie on it. He represents yet another example of a Minister saying one thing, but doing another.
  Before coming to detailed consideration of the Bill, I should like to remind the House that the Lord Chancellor—who was far more forthcoming in the other place than the Home Secretary has been today—told us that we shall be able to take our human rights concerns to
  "any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 1709, c. 1228.]
  Indeed, the misleading soundbite "bringing rights home" so beloved of the Labour party heralds a whole new field of legal activity, so perhaps the Minister who winds up the debate will tell us the Government's estimate of how many cases they believe will be brought before each level of court in the land in each of the next three years and how much extra public expenditure the Government have earmarked for that extension of legal activity. Who is going to train our judges and magistrates and how long will that take?
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that it is extremely expensive and onerous not only to individual litigants but to the Government and to the public purse for cases to be brought in Strasbourg that could be adjudicated in Britain by British judges?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has a point, and I think that everyone realises that there is a cost to be borne. However, he has probably underestimated the cost to be borne by the judicial system when everyone in the country is told that, whenever they believe that one of
  784
  their human rights has been denied by a public authority, whichever authority it may be, they can head off to their nearest court.
  The Bill will alter the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. In the United Kingdom, we have always had a separation of powers. Hon. Members are elected to the House, and hon. Members and those in another place usually pass laws following the Government's proposed legislation. Judges subsequently apply those laws in specific cases. However, all that will change.
  In the Bill, our courts will not be bound by decisions of the Strasbourg Court—although the Home Secretary was right to say that a matter will go to Strasbourg if Parliament is unwilling, under the fast-track procedure, to accept the judgment of our judges. As my noble Friend Lord Kingsland said in reply to the Lord Chancellor, the Strasbourg court's decisions will have a "persuasive but not obligatory" effect.
  Therefore, courts will consider cases in the context of United Kingdom law and with the convention in mind. As the Home Secretary said, the Bill will give courts the right to make a declaration of incompatibility when it decides that there is a conflict between the two. If primary legislation is found to be incompatible with convention rights, a higher court can declare incompatibility. We are told that, in some cases, subordinate legislation could be struck down without any reference to Parliament. In his speech, the Home Secretary did not manage to mention that enormously significant change in how we have done our business for a very long time—that, in some circumstances, judges will be given the right to strike down subordinate legislation.
  As the Home Secretary made clear in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), under the Bill, primary legislation may be amended not by new primary legislation but by order. I shall deal with that point later in my speech.
  Mr. Straw: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that British courts have always had the power to strike down subordinate legislation if they find that it is ultra vires to the parent statute? In principle, that is no different from the provisions of this Bill—which will also be an Act of the British Parliament.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and I am not; therefore, I shall be diffident. However, it seems that there is a difference between ultra vires and intra vires, and that that difference is at the heart of the difference between us. He provides an example of a law that is struck down because it is ultra vires, whereas the Bill would give courts power to strike down subordinate legislation that perfectly accords with the primary legislation from which it stems. That is a departure from our current system, and it comes as a great surprise to many hon. Members that the Home Secretary did not bother to mention it.
  Mr. McNamara: I think that the right hon. Gentleman failed to follow the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—which I was planning to make also: the courts already have power to declare legislation ultra vires. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that subordinate

  785
  legislation is intra vires the parent Act, but presumably the case is being brought against subordinate legislation. If the case is brought against the parent Act, there may be a declaration of incompatibility. If there is subsequently an action against subordinate legislation, it may be declared ultra vires.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I think that I understood precisely what the Home Secretary said, and I think that I made a real and important point—to which we can return when the House considers the Bill in Committee. However, I should like to help the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), because, in replying to his intervention, the Home Secretary was not as forthcoming as the Lord Chancellor was in another place. The hon. Gentleman asked about a time limit. In Lords Hansard of 3 November 1997, at column 1231, the Lord Chancellor said that, in practice, the time limit would be 40 days. It is perhaps not surprising that 40 days commended itself to Cardinal Wolsey.
  Mr. McNamara: Yes—the King's good servant but God's first. The right hon. Gentleman has again misread the situation. The point that was being made in the other place was on the making of subsidiary legislation. A normal rule in the House is that statutory instruments require affirmative resolution. The other place was talking about that—snot the nonsense that he is talking about.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Lord Chancellor's speech.
  The Bill's effect is clear: it would require courts to interpret the convention's broad and general provisions and apply them to policy spheres affecting individuals' rights and freedoms. Courts will therefore become involved in public policy matters that were previously the sole responsibility of Parliament. That consequence will be inevitable and is outwith the quality of the judiciary.
  In his speech, the Home Secretary said that the Bill would not necessarily affect sovereignty; but it goes to the very heart of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. The Government say that a declaration of incompatibility would protect Parliament's rights and will not change the law. The Home Secretary told the House that the declaration will only tell Ministers that judges think that a law should be changed, and that Ministers will decide on how to proceed. However—as the Home Secretary made clear in answer to an earlier intervention—those statements are, at best, disingenuous. If the Government do not respond to a declaration of incompatibility by judges, a litigant may go to Strasbourg. Therefore, the presumption is that when judges say that something in UK law must be changed—and, by the way, do it pretty quickly, old Parliament—Ministers will respond.
  Judges will therefore consider cases in the light of UK law and against the background of the convention—which is not detailed but consists of broad principles that are entirely worthy but unexceptional. Article 2 states that everyone has a right to life. Article 4 states that
  "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude."
  Article 8 says that
  "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
  786
  Article 10 says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
  All of those articles are hugely important to every hon. Member, in whichever corner we sit. They represent in our society—national and international—the highest moral ground. However, frequently judgments will have to be made between two or more of those articles in a particular case. How will those judgments be made?
  Mr. David Lock: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in his analysis of what he proposes to do, he is issuing a great insult to British judges? He is saying, "I do not trust British judges to work out where the convention has been breached; I would prefer to trust the judges in Strasbourg," and he trumpets the fact that the previous Government were happy to change the law if the Strasbourg judges declared it, but he is not prepared to do so when our judges make the same finding. Is not that an insult to the British judges?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman too soon. Had I kept going a little longer, I would have addressed that point.
  I return to the question—how are judges to decide? Normally, and historically, judges decide on the basis of decisions taken in this place. We pass legislation; we say what the law should be. We give them guidance to let them know what we intended by the legislation that we passed, and judges use that to determine the outcome of specific cases. However, in this new circumstance British judges will say, "This piece of law is outwith this convention article, in my judgment". They will say, "In my judgment," because the House will have set down no Act of Parliament to enable the judges to determine how else to proceed.
  Mr. Hogg: Is not the real change that the Bill is achieving that, in the past, the House has always laid out statutory provisions with great particularity, stating very clearly what the House wishes to provide by way of rights or obligations? The Bill, by incorporating the convention, is stating rights in very general terms, leaving the application of the particular facts to each case and thus the enlargement of particular rights to the judges. That is a fundamental transformation in the way in which we conduct our affairs.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He put it more elegantly than I did, but, in our own way, we both said the same thing. He is right to point out the fundamental nature of the change which this represents, and over which the Home Secretary skated earlier.
  Judges will not be obliged to abide by European Court of Human Rights judgments, so they will make their own judgments. Will they be influenced by the sense of existing United Kingdom legislation? Perhaps, but, by definition, they will not be bound by it in the cases that they hear, for they will have judged the UK law to be incompatible. So they will make new judgments in the specific, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham says, and they will break new ground. On what basis will they do so? They will do so on the basis of their own views and, as these will be in the area of human rights, judges will, in effect, be producing a judicially driven United Kingdom Bill of Rights.

  787
  Other countries have not developed or incorporated a Bill of Rights on the basis of judicial decisions in case law. Other countries have caused to be brought before their Parliament a Bill—historically, the way in which we have done it—which says, "This is what the Government believe should constitute a Bill of Rights", but the present Government have not done so.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When the right hon. Gentleman says that, historically, that is the way that we have done it, does he recall the example of the Defamation Act 1996, passed in the previous Parliament, and the change to the 1688 Bill of Rights that was enacted by the Conservative Government on the application of Neil Hamilton and a bunch of his friends from the Back Benches of the Conservative party, and which the Conservative Government were happy to change without formally declaring that this was a new Bill of Rights?
  Historically, was that not more important as a change, and done with less forethought and less of a declaration that we were changing the 1688 Bill of Rights than is the case now? I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is getting coaching from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), but, on the Richter scale of historical changes to the British constitution, was not the change embodied in the Defamation Act 1996 even greater than what he is complaining about today?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: No is the answer. The change to which the hon. Gentleman refers was by a Bill before the House. That is precisely my argument, and I am deeply grateful to him for reinforcing it.
  This is not modernising the constitution. This is not modernising Britain. This is tearing up our fundamental separation of powers. The Government plan to give effect to change by way of a declaration of incompatibility and, as the Lord Chancellor delicately put it:
  "the declaration is very likely to prompt the Government and Parliament to respond."
  That is the point.
  The present Government have taken disingenuity to a new level. "Of course it has nothing to do with us," they say. "We are not in favour of undermining the sovereignty of Parliament," they say. "We would not dream of introducing a privacy law by the back door," they say. But they pass the legislation to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament and give judges new rights.
  The Lord Chancellor said in another place,
  "We have taken the view that if legislation has been declared incompatible, a prompt parliamentary remedy should be available."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1231.]
  This afternoon the Home Secretary confirmed that.
  The Government want to change the legislation by introducing an unamendable order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was right to pressure the Home Secretary earlier. The Government want to introduce an unamendable order, perhaps in a matter of weeks, on the
  788
  say-so of judges who, drawing on their judicial experience and their socio-political views, decide that some bit of British law is incompatible with a convention article.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I have already given way. Let me make progress.
  The Government want to amend primary legislation by an unamendable order. In Committee, we shall ask the Home Secretary to give us examples that we can discuss, from a variety of fields, of Governments overturning primary legislation by means of an unamendable Order in Council.
  Mr. Straw: I can give the right hon. Gentleman two examples. Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 provides for very limited powers of scrutiny by the House, where the European Court of Justice makes a judgment that our law is outwith their—
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is totally different.
  Mr. Straw: The former Attorney-General says that it is totally different. It is indeed totally different, because the provisions of the Bill before us provide far more safeguards to the House than did the European Communities Act 1972. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was another example, where it is far less justified, in our judgment, than in the Bill before us.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked for examples. I gave him the detailed example of the Chahal case. Does he believe that it is satisfactory, where there has been a two-year delay, both in according individual rights and in giving force to the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971, for a Secretary of State to be allowed to declare someone's presence not conducive to the public good?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: The answer is: no, I do not think it is a satisfactory situation. We are now 10 months into this Parliament, and we are looking for a change. Arguing that things are not satisfactory, however, and arguing that that is sufficient basis for this legislation are two different things. We shall explore them further in Committee.
  Mr. Bercow: I apologise for interrupting the eloquence of my right hon. Friend's flow. Does he agree that for such an important debate, and on a cause so close to their hearts, it is extraordinary that only one representative from the Liberal Democrats is in the Chamber?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I find it all the more surprising because the Bill is part of the secret deal between the Government and the Liberal Democrats on constitutional issues. Over time, we are finding out what sort of price the Government are prepared to pay for Liberal Democrat support. The fact that the Liberal Democrats are not here today suggests to me that they have already done their deals and so do not need to sit in the Chamber. Perhaps we can learn more about that from the one who is present—the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).

  789
  So it appears that we are heading for a UK Bill of Rights, not enacted by Parliament, and driven by judges who may take account of, but are not bound by, European Court precedent or parliamentary legislation. I stress that none of this amounts to an attack on judges. This country owes much to their fine minds and judicial experience. Our quarrel is not with the judges or the European Court: our quarrel is with the Government. So it appears that we are heading for a UK Bill of Rights, not enacted by Parliament, and driven by judges who may take account of, but are not bound by, European Court precedent or parliamentary legislation. I stress that none of this amounts to an attack on judges. This country owes much to their fine minds and judicial experience. Our quarrel is not with the judges or the European Court: our quarrel is with the Government. So it appears that we are heading for a UK Bill of Rights, not enacted by Parliament, and driven by judges who may take account of, but are not bound by, European Court precedent or parliamentary legislation. I stress that none of this amounts to an attack on judges. This country owes much to their fine minds and judicial experience. Our quarrel is not with the judges or the European Court: our quarrel is with the Government.
  The Bill represents the most obvious example yet of the contempt in which the Government hold Parliament and—even worse—the sovereignty of Parliament. Other examples are Prime Minister's Question Time, devolution, and Parliament being the last to be informed. Now the very sovereignty of Parliament is being undermined.
  Speaking to a conference on a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom on 4 July last year, the Lord Chancellor said:
  "The British constitution is firmly based on the separation of powers. It is essential that incorporation is achieved in a way which does nothing to disturb that balance."
  The Bill does not meet that criterion. Unelected judges will be enabled to override elected Members of Parliament—such are the priorities of this Government.
  Let us look at a specific example. Parliament has always resisted the introduction of privacy legislation. It has taken the view that, warts and all, a free press operating within the framework of firm libel laws is a powerful guardian of freedom in our democracy. Of course, press invasion of private lives causes real pain for those concerned; if it is unwarranted intrusion, the pain is mixed with justifiable anger. We all agree that the private lives of members of the public should remain private. Their privacy should not be swept aside just to sell newspapers. When someone's reputation is at stake, it is important that lies should not become the common currency of everyday conversation.
  The right to privacy, however, should not become a cloak behind which to hide matters of legitimate public interest. No one, certainly not the Government, has yet drafted a privacy law that could distinguish between unwarranted press intrusion and the legitimate and necessary inquiries of a free press. An unfree press is bad news in a free society.
  The Government say that they are in favour of a voluntary code of self-regulation. All of us welcomed the tightening of the voluntary code by the Press Complaints Commission in response to the public mood and anguish after the death, last summer, of Diana, Princess of Wales. Those tighter rules were voluntarily agreed under the leadership of Lord Wakeham, chairman of the PCC—a leadership held in high regard on both sides of the House, as the Home Secretary was generous enough to say earlier.
  Yet, as it stands, the Bill provides for privacy legislation—or at least the danger of privacy legislation—by the back door. The Prime Minister says that he is against a privacy law, yet the Bill was allowed through the other place. The Lord Chancellor is fanatically in favour of allowing the judges to produce a privacy law. According to him, judges would decide—at the moment they still will decide—but they would not have to act in a vacuum, for they can look to the Lord Chancellor for
  790
  guidance. We know that he was against newspapers printing anything about the life of the Foreign Secretary. We know that he was appalled at the newspaper stories criticising Ministers and wanted Ministers to sue the papers concerned. We know that he favoured prior restraint. We know that, left to himself, he would like to transform the PCC, which is not his creature anyway, into a different type of body for which PCC would stand for Prior Censorship Commission. Editors would have needed to seek approval before they could publish stories.
  Of course, the editors would not do that; the PCC was aghast, as Lord Wakeham made clear; and the owners would not pay for it. But it all tells us a great deal about the Lord Chancellor's thinking—and judges pay considerable heed to his thinking.
  The Home Secretary's record is an unenviable one. The last time he spoke on Second Reading of a Bill in the House, he had to throw doubt on one of the Bill's central tenets in the middle of his speech. It must therefore be difficult for him to come to the House today and, again, to have to throw doubt on a central tenet of another Bill. It represents a humiliating U-turn by the Government, a slap in the face for the Lord Chancellor—and an about-face for the Prime Minister himself.
  I had a look at last Wednesday's Hansard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from which I should like to quote the following exchange:
  "Mr. Hague: When the Lord Chancellor says that the Human Rights Bill will lead to a privacy law, does the Prime Minister accept his judgment?
  The Prime Minister: No, it will not lead to a privacy law.
  Mr. Hague…Will he now agree to amend the Human Rights Bill so that there is no risk of its introducing a back door privacy law?
  The Prime Minister: We do not believe that that is the case.
  Mr. Hague…It is a bizarre situation when the Lord Chancellor says that we are to have a privacy law and the Prime Minister denies it. It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not take the Lord Chancellor seriously"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to quote Hansard, but he should not use surnames.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I did say that I was quoting from Hansard—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am giving a ruling. The right hon. Gentleman should not use surnames.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall simply say that the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not take the Lord Chancellor seriously when the Lord Chancellor takes himself so seriously. Is it not wrong to say that he opposes something while actually introducing it?"—
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not usual, even for Front Benchers, to paraphrase comments of this kind and not to read out the minutes in this fashion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not out of order at the moment.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Leader of the Opposition continued:
  "Is it not wrong to say that he opposes something while actually introducing it, to introduce a form of censorship under cover of human rights, and to speak of the rule of law while introducing the rule of lawyers? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider amending the Bill to deal with that point?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "…this is yet another example of the right hon. Gentleman beginning a campaign with no purpose and no conviction"—[Official Report, 11 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 362–4.]
  —a campaign with no purpose for about five days, until the Home Secretary stands before the House today and says, "On reflection, it was a campaign with a purpose—a campaign that was right on the button." I am happy to hear today not that the Home Secretary and the Chancellor have been talking to Lord Wakeham, but that the Home Secretary has been talking to Lord Wakeham and that he will table amendments to this part of the Bill.
  On behalf of the Opposition, may I say that I welcome the fact that the Government have heard the views of the Leader of the Opposition, my views and those of others. I am glad that the Government have listened to the views of the PCC, Lord Wakeham and the newspaper industry. However, given what we know of the Lord Chancellor's views and his influence at No. 10, we will await the details of the amendment before claiming that the battle has been won and that the Government have been defeated on the issue. It would be rash to do otherwise.
  I am happy to accept the Home Secretary's invitation to have discussions, and with his permission I will bring with me my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary, as the one section that he did not quote from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the section in which my right hon. Friend said:
  "We are already, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, consulting the newspaper industry and others on the issue."—[Official Report, 11 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 363.]
  Those consultations have now borne fruit. I am pleased that the shadow Home Secretary has welcomed that. Will he now accept that we have been straight with the House and let the House know what has been going on? That has been particularly successful, has it not, and a bit galling?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for extending his question, so that I could get my laughter muscles under control.
  One thing that we will want to do in particular, as the Home Secretary will understand, is to examine how far the amendments still leave the PCC at risk. From what he said, it did not sound as though what he had in mind would give total protection to the PCC, but we shall await the amendments and the discussion that he promised us and to which we look forward.
  Before concluding, I shall deal with one other fundamental aspect of the Bill.
  792
  "Clause 6 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with the convention"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1231.]
  —again, those are the Lord Chancellor's words. The Bill, he tells us, refers to public authorities "however defined". The Home Secretary made it clear this afternoon that, yet again, Parliament is to be denied a say in determining what should constitute a public authority. He was being extremely coy.
  One must ask why Parliament should not define a public authority. The Lord Chancellor would not allow that to happen in the other place. It is clear that the Home Secretary, with his huge majority, will not allow it to happen in this place, even though we shall probe. If the Home Secretary is not prepared to define a public authority by identifying bodies, why will he not at least define a public authority by characteristic?
  I tabled a parliamentary question last week for answer last Thursday. I asked—not unreasonably, I think—whether a public authority is defined by the spending of taxpayers' money—that is a fairly public activity—or by fulfilling a statutory function—that is a pretty public activity—or by having one or more Government appointees on its governing body. The answer that I got last Thursday was "I will reply soon to the right hon. Gentleman." The House will not be surprised to know that "soon" is not before today's Second Reading.
  I tabled another question last week for answer on Friday, listing a series of bodies and asking the Government to give us an idea which of those bodies might constitute a public authority and which might not. I got a reply on Friday from the Minister, saying that he would reply soon. Of course, "soon" is not before the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Why the coyness? If the Government do not want to set out a list of bodies, why will they not at least define the characteristics of a public authority? We know, from what the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor said, that public authorities includes Government Departments, the police, the BBC but probably not ITV, although perhaps the Independent Television Commission, and the Press Complaints Commission.
  That may be changed by amendment, but the PCC came as something of a surprise, for it is an entirely private body in the ownership of the newspaper industry, funded by the newspaper industry and not fulfilling any statutory function; yet it is to be a public authority. The Home Secretary will have managed to scare charities throughout the country this afternoon by suggesting that they may also be characterised as public authorities.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Has no answer been given about what constitutes a public authority because the answer may be too embarrassing? While a huge organisation such as the Murdoch newspaper empire may be considered a private body, a small local parish church will be considered a public body because it conducts marriages, and will therefore be liable to be sued.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend may be right. That may be to spare the Government embarrassment. It may be because the Government do not know. It may even be because the Government do not much care. If the latter were the case, it would be in the spirit of the Bill, which is the spirit of a Government washing their hands of their

  793
  primary responsibility to Parliament, while giving power to the judges, which secretly the Government do not mind, but do not have the nerve to do directly through the House.
  I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that he will consult with Churches about the amendments that were carried in another place against the Lord Chancellor and the Government in respect of Churches and Church schools. The House will have heard what he said about the legislation. It roughly corresponded to what the Lord Chancellor told another place. Another place did not accept those assurances and legislated accordingly.
  The Opposition attach considerable significance to the changes that were introduced in another place. Were the Home Secretary, in the spirit that he has already displayed, to invite me to come in and talk to him about this issue also, I would be more than happy to accept his invitation.
  Mr. Straw indicated assent.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for indicating that I can look forward to such an invitation.
  This is a Home Office Bill which owes much to the Lord Chancellor. It is not about whether hon. Members support human rights for UK citizens; we do. It is not about whether we support the convention and its interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights; we support the former, and most of the time the latter. When, occasionally, we have not agreed with the Court, we have nevertheless amended our law, as is required of convention signatories.
  The Bill is not even about giving human rights to our citizens—they have them already. Whether intentional or not, the Bill is about diminishing the sovereignty of Parliament; it is about weakening our democracy and changing fundamentally the balance of the separation of powers between the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The result will be a further increase in the power of the Executive, the diminution of Parliament and the politicisation of the judiciary.
  No Act of Parliament will set out how the broad statements of the European convention should be understood in British law or to whom they should apply. Members of Parliament elected from 659 constituencies across the nation to protect the public interest will be mere bystanders as the courts interpret the meaning of the convention and, perhaps inappropriately, gag our press. The Government like to claim that they keep their promises—they say that even when they are breaking them. Before the election, the Government did not promise the British people that they would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament—but that is what they are doing in this Bill. For that reason above others, we do not support the legislation.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
  Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: As leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, I am delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill at such an early stage in this Parliament.
  The Bill is welcome for two important reasons. First, it has intrinsic importance. The shadow Home Secretary is correct to agree with the Home Secretary in saying that the Bill does not extend human rights. However, it does extend the effective implementation of those human rights, which is extremely important. Human rights are not simply a matter of legislation, convention and treaties. It is important that we are able to implement human rights. People must be able to obtain redress: they must be able to go to an independent body, plead that their human rights have been infringed and have that body adjudicate on the issue. An independent body exists in the form of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is one of the most important institutions of the Council of Europe. However, the Court is located in Strasbourg. The Bill enables British people to go to courts in this country to argue that their human rights have been infringed and obtain redress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be congratulated on bringing the Bill before the House of Commons.
  While listening to the shadow Home Secretary, I was struck by the fact that he seemed to have only four arguments against the Bill. He did not argue against human rights: he made it clear that he agreed with and supported the convention on human rights. He could do little else: even the modern Conservative party accepts the convention on human rights, as did its predecessors over the past 50 years. The shadow Home Secretary argued that this is a bad Bill for four reasons.
  First, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would lead to judge-made law. He made it clear that he was not a lawyer. I do not claim to be a lawyer either, but I seem to recall that a great deal of law in this country may be regarded as judge made, as a result of centuries of British jurisprudence. Therefore, I do not think that the shadow Home Secretary's argument carries much weight.
  Secondly, the shadow Home Secretary argued that the Bill would introduce a privacy law by the back door. He made great play of exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time. I remind the shadow Home Secretary that Conservative Members seem to be having it both ways. During a debate in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in September, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)—the leader of the Conservative Members in the delegation—argued that we needed a privacy law and greater protection of privacy in view of the events surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
  It was Labour delegates who argued that, despite concern about those events, we should not hasten to legislate or devise a new convention on privacy, lest, in our haste and concern, we took an unbalanced view and impinged on the freedom of the press to publish reports about improper behaviour by public figures. There are

  795
  many examples of such behaviour: I am thinking back over decades, rather than the past few months. People—not least Robert Maxwell—have used the law successfully to prevent the publication of details of their financial transactions, business practices and so on. Labour Members are particularly concerned to ensure that we do nothing to strengthen the hand of Robert Maxwell's successors in the City of London and elsewhere, and thus enable them to avoid unwelcome publicity. However, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East argued in favour of stronger privacy laws and called for a new convention to introduce them.
  Thirdly, the shadow Home Secretary said that the Bill would lead to a conflict between the judiciary and Parliament. On the one hand, he said that the judges would use the convention to extend our rights and, on the other, he said that judges would use the convention to conflict with laws enacted by Parliament. We shall have to wait and see, but I think that that is most unlikely. However, if judges decide that an Act of Parliament passed by any parties represented in this place—parties dedicated to the concept of human rights and supporting the European convention on human rights—contravenes that convention, I think that we should be grateful to those judges for drawing that fact to our attention. I put it no stronger than that. Nothing in the Bill affects the sovereignty of Parliament. If the House of Commons and the House of Lords decide, in their wisdom, to stand against the convention on human rights, we shall do that—and pay the consequences in terms of our membership of the Council of Europe. However, I cannot conceive of that occurring. It has not happened in the past 50 years, and I cannot believe that hon. Members would be so cavalier as to disregard the convention's provisions.
  Fourthly, the shadow Home Secretary's real motivation was revealed in a point that he made early in the speech. He said that introducing the procedure to enshrine these rights in British law and to involve the British courts would mean that more people would take action to secure their rights. I believe that a right is a right only if it can be obtained. It is no good having paper rights: rights are real things. People must be able to obtain redress quickly and cheaply. They should not incur the delay and expense involved with going to the Court in Strasbourg. That process takes far too long.
  One criticism that I have of the Council of Europe is the time that it takes to bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights. By contrast, the shadow Home Secretary believes that it is a mistake to make it easier for people to exercise their rights. I do not agree—and neither do my right hon. and hon. Friends. We believe that if human rights are to be effective, it must be possible to obtain them quickly and cheaply. That means going to the British courts rather than waiting to bring cases before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—although that safeguard will remain.
  Mr. Ruffley: Does the hon. Gentleman foresee an extension in the take-up of legal aid or the legal aid budget as a result of individuals seeking to claim their rights in United Kingdom courts? If so, where will the money come from?
  Mr. Davis: It is quite possible—indeed, it was implied by the shadow Home Secretary, but has now been made
  796
  explicit by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)—that people will apply for legal aid and get it; otherwise, they will not be able to get their rights. Rights that are available only to the rich are not rights at all. My hon. Friends and I believe that for human rights to be real rights, they have to be available to everybody, not just to those who can afford to go to court.
  Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of Airey v. Ireland, where the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said that to be able effectively to seek justification of a right, there was a duty on the public authorities to ensure that justice was accessible?
  Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend, who is an active member of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Council of Europe Assembly, is absolutely right. He spends a great deal of his time ensuring that people have access to human rights in other countries in Europe. He is right to remind us, and to support my contention, that we should do everything that we can to make it possible for people in this country to have access to human rights and to ensure that those rights are observed, regardless of the depth of their pockets. That is an important consideration. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would accept for a moment that human rights should be restricted only to those who have the means to go to court.
  There is a second reason to welcome the Bill: its symbolic importance. It is important from the point of view of relations with the whole of Europe not only that we are involved in the campaign for human rights in eastern, central and western Europe, but that we are seen to be concerned about human rights in our own country. By introducing the Bill, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated that the Government are concerned that human rights are part not just of our foreign policy, but of our domestic policy, and that human rights and the conventions of the Council of Europe are an integral part of our approach to Europe.
  The convention on human rights is not being imposed on anybody. Every signatory to the convention has signed it because the Government of the member state and, in almost all cases, the Opposition agree with it. By integrating the convention on human rights into our law, we are showing that we are an integral part of the best part of European developments.
  For all those reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends deserve to be congratulated, and on behalf of the delegation to the Council of Europe Assembly, I do so.
  5.32 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I shall devote my remarks to one particular issue, on which the Home Secretary touched equally briefly in his speech—the Church.
  I raise this point almost with reluctance, because if the Division lists are right, when the original amendment was voted on in the House of Lords, it was defeated by a margin that was smaller than the number of Lords Spiritual who were not present. It continually amazes me that the Church of England can see danger ahead, yet never seems to pipe all hands to the deck. I object to the fact that it is often left to the laity to clear up clerical derelictions. However, that said, we should look at the two amendments that were considered in another place.

  797
  In raising this issue, I speak personally as a Christian and not just for the Christian Church, because if the second amendment has the effect that we fear it will have, it will affect all Churches regardless of denomination. It will, for example, affect ethnic minority Churches just as much as the established Church of the country.
  I would have preferred that the first amendment that was considered in another place had been carried. It sought simply to exempt the Church from the provisions of clause 6, so that religious bodies would not be able to be defined as public bodies. That amendment was lost by a narrow margin, as I have said.
  A subsequent amendment—to provide a defence for a Church, on the ground of religious belief, against actions that might be brought against it in its capacity as a public body—was carried in another place. Although I welcome that amendment and congratulate Baroness Young and Lord Alton of Liverpool on their sterling efforts to get it through, it is very much a second-rate option. I hope that the first option will be tested in this place.
  Germany has decided that it is right to introduce additional safeguards for Churches and religious bodies. It did so because it does not share the interpretation of article 9 that the Home Secretary seemed to be putting forward. We would do well to follow the German example and make a point of protecting our Churches.
  Having made rather disparaging remarks about the Lords Spiritual in another place, I must now tell the Home Secretary that he, too, was at fault, because the Churches were not consulted on this. Indeed, it appears that the definition of a public body was made clear only in Committee in another place. That seems a most extraordinary way in which to address the important issues that are in a Bill of such magnitude.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extraordinary if the Government did not accept the amendment that was passed by the other place, because it merely puts on the face of the Bill what the Lord Chancellor assured the other place would be the position once the Bill was passed?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes. As I have made clear, I would prefer that we test the rather stronger option of exempting the Church altogether.
  Although the Home Secretary did not consult the Churches earlier, I welcome the offer that he made at the Dispatch Box today. I very much hope that it will be taken up. I would like to get in an early request to meet him on that basis.
  Arguably, clause 6 goes much further than the European Court of Human Rights, which has always treated Churches as religious groups and autonomous bodies.
  Article 9, on which the Home Secretary relies, is concerned with the religious freedom of the individual. Indeed, if article 9, which guarantees the religious freedom of the individual, is not balanced by the protection of the freedom of a Church, an individual clergyman in, say, the Church of England, could make a public statement that he did not believe in God and claim a religious freedom of conscience, and the Church would have no defence to its sacking him. That could happen if an individual's rights in article 9 were not balanced by an overriding right of a Church to its religious beliefs and practices.
  798
  The Home Secretary named one or two anomalies that could arise, and said, "These can't happen." With respect, he did not demonstrate that to the House. If Churches are classified as public bodies for certain functions, abortion clinics could demand to be allowed to advertise in the Roman Catholic press; people who are entitled under civil law to remarry following divorce could demand the same from the Roman Catholic Church; and ethnic minority religions that do not practise equality of opportunity would be compelled to do so. If the Home Secretary thinks that that is impossible, I ask him carefully to study the speech of Lord Alton of Liverpool in another place, which includes examples of where such intolerance has been practised following the subjugation of the Church's religious function to civil rights and, probably, to the politically correct lobby.
  We are told that the purpose behind the Bill is to protect the rights of the individual against the state. It appears, however, given the Churches' position, that individuals and Churches will lose their rights of religious freedom and will be suppressed by state law. I find that odd.
  To turn away from the Church, I have little respect for a Bill that talks about the right to life and extends that right to absolutely everyone except the weakest life of all—that in the womb.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), having listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The more I listened to my right hon. Friend, the more convinced I became of the value of the Bill. The more I listened to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, the more I thought that he did not understand the Bill. For him, as someone who from time to time introduced statutory instruments of 160 or 250 articles—for example, the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Education Order 1989—that could not be amended anywhere to suggest derogation from parliamentary sovereignty was, I found, a bit rich.
  I shall talk about the Bill. I am disappointed that it does not contain the whole of the preamble of the European declaration on human rights. Two of the introductory paragraphs from the preamble demonstrate the underlying principles behind the declaration, which we should be welcoming and accepting as the spirit of the proposed legislation that is before us.
  The paragraphs refer to the signatory Governments in terms of
  "Reaffirming their profound belief in those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the human rights upon which they depend;
  Being resolved, as the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration".
  We should be proud that we are putting those sentiments into our legislation. We should be proud also that it was British draftsmen who played a major part in setting them out. We should delight in the fact that, as we are about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe,

  799
  the provisions to which I have referred are to be incorporated in our domestic legislation. We should all be proud of that.
  We are following in the great tradition of liberal and freedom legislation, which has its roots in our own Bill of Rights and in the American declaration of independence. The convention's rights lie also in the writings of Tom Paine and the declaration of the rights of man of the French revolution—indeed, all those great things that make for individual human liberty. Contained within the convention are all the great ideas for which people were fighting in the course of 19th century liberalism. It is sad that only at the end of the 20th century are we incorporating such rights in British law.
  The main defect of the proposals before us is that they are concerned primarily with 19th century liberalism. Economic, cultural, ethical and other freedoms are not included in the Bill, except briefly and in a negative way in only one of the clauses.
  The Bill is probably the most far-reaching and important of all the constitutional measures that have been introduced by the present Administration. It will require common law henceforth to be developed consistently with the European convention on human rights. It will require also that all primary and secondary legislation be henceforth construed as far as possible so as to be compatible with the provisions of the convention. What can possibly be wrong with that? Which of the human rights as listed do we not accept?
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman might care to focus on the problem that although the language of the convention is, of course, perfectly acceptable, rights are expressed in very general terms. For more than 40 years, the European Court has interpreted those rights to an extent quite beyond that ever contemplated by the founding fathers. It is a moving convention. It is a mistake, therefore, to talk about it as a fixed system of law. The problem is that it is a constantly changing system of law that is developed by a continuing stream of judicial interpretations outwith the contemplation of the founding fathers.
  Mr. McNamara: What a splendid point. English common law developed in exactly the same way through attitudes and interpretations. Once judicial interpretations begin, we have judicial interpretations of judicial interpretations of judicial decisions.
  I am surprised that Opposition Members, many of whom are learned in the law, find it strange that judges should be examining declarations and interpreting them, bearing in mind the generality of so many of the laws that we have introduced.
  More important is that the breadth of the Bill is enhanced by the fact that all courts and tribunals will have to have regard to its terms, including all public authorities. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). They will be bound to act consistently with convention rights as set out in the Bill.
  It seems that that causes problems for Opposition Members. Some of them ask, "What will happen to the Churches?" I understand that argument and I take it on board. The answer is that we shall have interpretations.
  800
  Ultimately, however, the issue could still go to Strasbourg, followed by an interpretation that Opposition Members may not like. It seems that those on the Opposition Front Bench would be prepared to accept such a ruling. In other words, the position remains the same—unless the Opposition are arguing that we should start to pick and choose, accepting some interpretations and rulings but not others. We cannot do that and remain in the overall organisation.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Churches should be public authorities in terms of the Bill?
  Mr. McNamara: No, I do not. Whether they are or are not, decisions will be made in Strasbourg, despite what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may say. I think that we can find a way of removing the Churches from that definition. Indeed, I welcomed what my right hon. Friend said. I hope that I can be a member of the happy club that will talk to him about these matters, with an archbishop here and a cardinal there, along with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and a spokesman for the Liberal party. We might even go to a remote island to sort things out while at a spa, for example.
  Mr. Terry Davis: Iona.
  Mr. McNamara: Perhaps not at this time of year. Given the attitude that some Opposition Members are taking, it might be better to go to Lough Derg.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman said that he would be quite happy to remove Churches from the definition. I take it that if the Opposition were to table the original Lords amendment in this place, the hon. Gentleman would support it.
  Mr. McNamara: I never give hostages to fortune, especially in the form of Conservative amendments. I shall wait and see before reaching my own decision. I merely add that I would have loved the right hon. Lady to be in the Lobby with me when we sought to stop the Government taking money away from single parents. That would have been great, because it would have removed some of the pressure on single mothers to have an abortion.
  It is interesting to note who will be covered by the Bill, because public authorities such as the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the employment appeals tribunal, the police, the Prison Service and immigration adjudicators have a significant effect on the rights of individuals. The application of certain European cases will also be important. The Gibraltar case of McCann v. United Kingdom may involve an obligation on the state not to organise police operations so negligently that they result in incidents in which individuals are inevitably shot by agents of the state. That would have important ramifications for Northern Ireland, for the people killed in Loughgall and for the 20-year discussion that we have had about the use of lethal force in Northern Ireland.
  Ribitsch v. Austria involved mistreatment of people in custody. In the important case of Soering v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights gave extra-territorial effect to the convention. It declared that

  801
  if a person were to be extradited to the United States to face a charge that could result in capital punishment, an undertaking would have to be given that that person, if found guilty, would not be placed on death row.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the press. It will be interesting to see the amendment, and whether I agree with it will depend on what it contains, but it seems reasonable. But why the argument? Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights could result in privacy laws that would be binding on us. That is the answer to those who argue about the press, and about whether we should or should not give way to Rupert Murdoch. The European Court of Human Rights would be the final arbiter, and we would have to accept its decision.
  Following the sad death of the Princess of Wales, I took part in a Council of Europe colloquy on privacy laws. The jurisprudence of the Council of Europe is in favour of the freedom of the press. Member states that have introduced legislation to protect the privacy of the individual were the most vociferous in demanding such laws, whereas others felt that countries should not legislate too harshly so as to protect the independence of the press.
  The Press Complaints Commission can regulate the press to prevent people from being annoyed about invasions of their privacy, and can provide safeguards so that the press can pursue its legitimate activities. However, all the members of the Press Complaints Commission are appointed by press barons. It is financed by press barons. It is regulated by press barons, and it adjudicates on its members, depending on their size and wealth. It can rap them over the knuckles, but one never hears of newspapers being punished by not being allowed put their editions on the streets for two days, or by having to pay a heavy fine. That would be a Press Complaints Commission with real teeth.
  The Bill does not deal with equality issues, except under article 14 of the convention. There is a major weakness in the anti-discrimination provision. It is not a free-standing prohibition on discrimination: it is parasitic on the other provisions of the convention and subsidiary to them, as it is to be brought into play only when other convention rights are at issue. It does not include the concept of indirect discrimination. The provision is negative: it prohibits some discrimination, and it does not require the Government to promote equality of opportunity. I say again that the Bill deals with individual rights, and does not deal with community, cultural, ethnic and language rights.
  The Bill will be important for Northern Ireland. In its policy statement, the Ulster Unionist party said that it would accept legislation that gives effect to the European convention on human rights for any assembly that may be established. It said:
  "Consequently…a cumbersome structure of checks and balances would be unnecessary."
  I read that as a threat to the Fair Employment Commission in Northern Ireland, but I hope that I am wrong. Any agreement that emerges from the present talks, or any action taken by both Governments if the talks should sadly fail, should include a clear and unambiguous declaration of equality as a human right. An agreement should contain certain principles. No public authority should be able to discriminate unfairly, directly or indirectly, against anyone on the grounds of race, gender,
  802
  sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, birth, nationality or national origin. That is a pretty comprehensive list, but other grounds could be added if necessary.
  Discrimination is only part of the problem. Public authorities should be under a duty to promote full and effective equality of opportunity between all parts of the community in Northern Ireland in any areas of economic, social, political and cultural life in which they are involved. A Bill imposing a duty on public authorities to provide equality of opportunity was introduced by Labour Members in the previous Parliament. It was supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was then the Opposition spokesman, and by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party.
  Social need should be properly targeted, which may require affirmative action programmes. Positive discrimination may be necessary to tackle inequality.
  We should establish principles that would enable full equality to be achieved and would give people the ability fully to participate in decision making. The European Union insists on such principles when moneys are allocated to Northern Ireland to underpin the ceasefire and to redress the balance in disaffected and underprivileged areas.
  Those ideas go beyond the concept of human rights in the Bill. We should be dealing not with 19th century civil and human rights but with what should happen in the 21st century. Many of the points that I have made have been covered by the recent Council of Europe framework convention on national minorities. Such matters must be put into practice.
  Public bodies must be put under a duty to create arrangements to ensure that their various functions and responsibilities are carried out with due regard to the need to comply with equality and non-discriminatory legislation.
  I do not want to bore the House with the rest of my recipe for what needs to be done in Northern Ireland, but I suggest that some of the issues that we are discussing in relation to that area should concern Ministers, for they apply here in Great Britain. Many issues relating to the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the proposed disabilities commission, for instance, go beyond the realm of individual human rights, involving groups and classes of human right—ethnic, cultural, linguistic and so on.
  What I have said, I have said with the aim of contributing to an improvement in the Bill. In particular, I should like Ministers to reflect on this: whatever we decide to do about public authorities—and I hope we can find a way of dealing with that issue—we should also consider those who are entitled to come before the courts. At present, we are talking only about the individual who seeks redress. We should consider whether—as can happen now—non-governmental bodies can ask to bring cases before the courts for a declaration, so that a court can almost anticipate what may happen. I am thinking of bodies such as the EOC, the CRE, the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights, Liberty and other non-governmental organisations that are involved with personal human liberties, cultural or individual.
  Finally, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) spoke of the great freedoms that the previous Government gave trade union

  803
  members. I thought of the greatest freedom that he gave them: when they are engaged in a legal strike, after going through all the hoops introduced by Conservative legislation, their employers can still dismiss them. So much for the Conservatives' idea of human rights.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Bill is the centrepiece of the constitutional resettlement on which the Government embarked before the election, with the full-hearted support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As is well known, we entered into a broad agreement on a legislative programme for constitutional reform that was unprecedented not only in itself, but in its scope and ambition. I have no doubt that that was right, for constitutional reform requires broad cross-party support if it is to be effective and stable.
  In the foreword to the document that our two parties published before the election, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—now the Foreign Secretary—and I wrote:
  "Democracy and freedom cannot be taken for granted. Every generation has a responsibility to ensure that these principles are given fresh meaning and defended against any tendency on the part of those in power to diminish their accountability to the people."
  I believe that, in the Bill, the Government have recognised the strength of that thought.
  We proposed that the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European convention on human rights since 1951 should be incorporated in United Kingdom law by Act of Parliament. Hitherto, to obtain the protection of the convention, our citizens have had to go to Strasbourg and appeal to the Commission and the Court, a long and expensive course which denies effective remedies to many of them. The Bill brings those rights home, in the words of the Government's paper.
  As the Home Secretary said, a number of attempts have been made in Parliament to achieve that end. The late Donald Wade and Lord Scarman introduced such measures, which received the support of another place, and, as long ago as December 1983, I introduced a private Member's Bill with the same purpose. That Bill enjoyed cross-party support in the House of Commons. It is worth recalling, in the light of the bizarre Conservative amendment, that it was sponsored by—among others—Sir Geoffrey Rippon, Norman St. John-Stevas, Terence Higgins and Sir Edward Gardner, of whom the Home Secretary spoke.
  It is not surprising that the Bill enjoyed Conservative support then. The convention rights had originally been advanced in the Council of Europe by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as a rapporteur of the Council of Europe's committee on human rights. He later became a Conservative Lord Chancellor, as Lord Kilmuir. The convention owed a great deal to the common law of this country, and no Conservative Government have seen fit to question the entitlement of British citizens to seek protection of those rights by individual petition to Strasbourg.
  What I think will astonish many observers of the new Conservative party under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is the
  804
  spectacle of the Conservatives' preferring rights to be protected in future not by our own judges in our own courts, but by foreign judges in a foreign court. What a falling-off is there. It is hard to escape the conclusion that, in attacking a Bill to repatriate human rights, the new Conservative party is cynically hoping that the convention rights will simply wither away through inaccessibility.
  The language with which the Conservatives have dressed up their amendment is fanciful, in respect of both what it implies about our present constitutional arrangements and what it purports to believe would be the consequences of the Bill's enactment. It is fanciful to suggest, as the amendment does, that our constitution effectively reflects the principle of separation of powers between Executive, legislature and judiciary.
  A large part of the speech of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was devoted to an excoriation of the Lord Chancellor, who in himself is a standing illustration—if one were needed—that the powers are not separate within our constitution. He—the senior judge of the realm, legislator in the upper House and member of the Executive—is a full member of the Cabinet. It is cant to talk about seeking to protect our constitution in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman did.
  There is much to be said for a greater separation of powers than we have known in this country. The executive arm of government is too dominant in our constitution. The present Administration deserve credit for recognising that and voluntarily taking steps in the Bill to make it more accountable. The threat to our freedoms can be found in the propensity of British Governments to use this House and this Parliament simply to ratify their will. It is fanciful to suggest that the Bill will lead to a diminution of Parliament.
  Unlike earlier attempts to incorporate the convention, and unlike the European Communities Act 1972—which, as the House was reminded, was introduced by a Conservative Government—the Bill does not give primacy to treaty rights where there is a provision in this Parliament's legislation that is incompatible with a convention right. In their endeavour to ensure the supremacy of Parliament, the Government have followed a novel course. They have provided only that the courts may make a declaration of incompatibility. They have eschewed the more normal statutory interpretation that there has been an implied repeal if Parliament has enacted a measure subsequently. As a result of the form in which the measure is couched, it falls to Parliament to decide whether to safeguard the convention right by the means set out in clauses 10 to 12.
  It might be argued that a Bill of Rights should indeed be the fundamental law of the land, impliedly repealing all incompatible legislation, but that is not the way of this Bill. Far from introducing, as the amendment suggests, an "incompatible constitutional framework", the Bill is deferential to the sensitivities of the judiciary about being given an overriding constitutional power. That is no doubt why the Bill enjoys the support of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and an overwhelming majority of senior members of the judiciary who are to likely to be called on to apply the convention rights and jurisprudence of the European convention and the Court of Human Rights if the Bill is enacted.
  Mr. Hogg: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves clauses 10, 11 and 12, would he be good enough to tell

  805
  the House whether he and his party support the proposition that primary legislation should in this case be amended by statutory order, or agree with the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that, should primary legislation require amendment, it should be amended by primary legislation?
  Mr. Maclennan: I disagree profoundly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The matter need not have been dealt with in the way in which it has been in the Bill. I would have taken sustenance from recalling his learned father's words about the constitution—when he was not in office—and the tyranny of elected representatives. The Bill falls over backwards to secure the supremacy of Parliament—further, frankly, than I think was necessary. I certainly would not support an amendment along the lines that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, which would not deal with problems that arise when a measure has been found to be incompatible with the European convention and which would leave the litigant without a remedy and inevitably force a long and expensive course of action through the Strasbourg courts. Indeed, in some cases, such a process would greatly embarrass the Government, particularly where it is clear that the law is not on the Government's side, as has often been the case.
  I said that the Bill enjoys the support of the senior judiciary. It ought also to enjoy the support of the legislative arm of our constitution because it is so deferential to the authority of Parliament. If Parliament acts to repeal measures that are incompatible with the convention, it will perhaps do something to strengthen the regard in which Parliament is held as the guarantor of the fundamental rights and freedoms of our citizens. Too often have we in recent years been seen to be powerless in the face of the abuse of power by the executive arm of government; too often have protests fallen on deaf ears; too often have individual Members of Parliament had to recognise that they were in no position to set aside such abuses.
  The Government have made it plain that they will look favourably on the establishment of a Standing Committee to advise on the working of the Act in practice. I welcome such a development. I hope that the President of the Council will bring forward recommendations to give effect to that. The Conservatives' amendment is unworthy of a party which claims to have regard for individual freedom.
  Looking to the future, I would favour a constitutional settlement that rebalances the powers of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Such a written constitution, accepted by the people, would reflect the wider distribution of public power and secure greater accountability for its exercise. It would embody the settled view of people as to where the line should be drawn, delimiting the exercise of public power. But that is not for today. The Conservative party, in its amendment, seems simply to be trying to take some of the shine off a golden measure, which sets enforceable legal limits to the great powers of government. The Bill, which secures the European convention in the laws of the United Kingdom to provide effective remedies in our courts for breaches of convention rights by public authorities, including private bodies that exercise public functions, is greatly to the Government's credit.
  806
  The introduction of the Bill in another place has given us in this House the benefit of the opinions of many who are learned in the law. Since the Conservative party's amendment refers to
  "the politicisation of the judiciary",
  I should like to draw attention to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, on Second Reading. In answer to the fear that judges might be drawn into politics, he reminded the other place that that had not happened in other member states of the Council of Europe that had already given effect to the convention. He pointed out:
  "judges already from time to time find themselves deciding cases which have political, sometimes even party-political, implications. The judges strive to decide those cases on a firm basis of legal principle."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1246.]
  I do not doubt that that is what our judges will do if the Bill becomes law.
  In the development of the role, it will be helpful to the judiciary to be able to take account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and of the opinions and decisions of the Commission, as provided in clause 2. It will also be helpful that clause 3 requires, so far as is possible, that legislation be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with convention rights.
  There are two matters about which there has been recent debate and which we shall no doubt wish to consider in detail in Committee. The first concerns the position of Churches. It is indeed surprising that this issue should have arisen, since article 9 of the European convention specifically gives explicit and powerful protection of the rights of conscience and religion. Article 2 of the first protocol of the convention gives rights to parents in respect of religious education in accordance with their consciences. If doubts remain, they must and shall be addressed. I cannot see any practical problems for the Churches that will flow from this measure, which is designed to safeguard individuals from the misuse of public power.
  The second anxiety that has emerged relates to the impact that article 8 of the convention on guaranteeing respect for privacy may have on the freedom of the press. The anxieties that have been voiced are misplaced. Article 10 of the European convention secures the right to freedom of expression, limited only by such restrictions as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. Those two articles are clearly balanced. They have been tested in a number of cases before the European Court. The Home Secretary spoke particularly of The Sunday Times and the thalidomide case and the "Spycatcher" case, which have made clear that claims to personal privacy must not be allowed to defeat the vital public interest in free expression except where really necessary and where what is at stake really is the individual's private life.
  Article 8.2 qualifies the right to respect for personal privacy where it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the right to freedom of

  807
  speech. It is not only within the jurisprudence of the Court but even in the very language of the convention that primacy is given to freedom of expression.
  Mr. Bercow: I am following closely the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. What does he think would happen in the event of a conflict between a convention right and European Community law?
  Mr. Maclennan: The convention right applies within the EU and if there were a conflict, it would prevail. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the movement within the EU to incorporate the convention as a matter of EU law, but that is simply to reflect the view and wish of the member countries to give primacy to the convention rights. EU legislation greatly amplifies the broad principles and we in this House have seen the anti-discriminatory provisions of employment law advanced more rapidly under the EU provisions.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has a point, which we will have to discuss in Committee. As a result of the Amsterdam treaty, the EU has given further powers to the European Court of Justice, including some in human rights. The possibility of conflict does exist.
  Mr. Maclennan: There may be conflict, but I would take the view that the EU institutions will expect to give primacy to the convention provisions on fundamental rights and freedoms.
  The thrust of the Bill is to secure remedies in our courts and to open up access. I wish to address two matters that have not been touched upon in the debate and on which I must express some reservations—even disappointment. These matters seem potentially to limit the wider aim of the Government to open up access.
  The first concerns the matter of standing. It is unfortunate that the Bill imports the European victim test, thus requiring interested bodies to seek to extend the protections of the convention rights to file amicus curiae briefs rather than to be party to the action. It is unfortunate that the Government have not accepted the standing rules governing judicial review generally. I hope that that will be the subject of an amendment.
  My second disappointment is that the Government have not yet concluded that it would be right to set up a human rights commissioner or commission—or similar public body—to provide advice and assistance to those seeking the protection of the convention rights, as envisaged by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties prior to the election. We consider that it would be useful to have such a body, able to bring proceedings to secure effective compliance with the convention, whether by judicial review or by representative proceedings on behalf of a number of people.
  I am aware that the Government have not finally rejected the proposal and they have indicated that it might be considered by a Select Committee of the House, if one were to be appointed. I hope that if we are faced with delay, it is delay only and that that delay does not of itself diminish the effectiveness of the measure at the beginning of its life. There is also an important potential educational
  808
  role for such a body in helping to create a climate in which the very thought of advancing measures that might fall foul of the convention would be diminished. Such a body would greatly contribute to widening awareness, as well as to preventing and remedying breaches of fundamental rights and freedoms.
  In conclusion, I express my admiration of the speed with which the Government have proposed the Bill, honouring a core constitutional commitment. I also acknowledge the way in which the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have listened to concerns and have shown openness to ideas capable of improving the Bill. I do not share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire that listening to people's ideas about a published Bill is a matter of which Ministers should be ashamed or embarrassed. In my view, it is the very reverse. To publish a subtle and clever Bill of such major importance—couched in broad terms as it is—is to take the risk that some of its measures may have an effect that is not initially perceived, but the Government are right to have done so and to have proceeded in that way.
  The Government were right to listen, and they have already accepted one or two amendments in another place that have definitely improved the Bill. This is a measure in which they can take legitimate pride.
  6.24 pm
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have proposed the Bill, thus fulfilling another pre-election promise to our electorate. I know that there is widespread support for the Bill in my constituency.
  As one of the two Yorkshire representatives from the Back Benches on the Council of Europe—the parent body of the European convention on human rights—and a member of the Council's human rights committee, I am particularly pleased that our constituents will have access to the redressing of human rights abuses here without the expense and inconvenience of travelling to Strasbourg—which, I can say from experience, can be intensely cold in January.
  Article 8 of the convention provides us all with the right to respect for our private and family life, home and correspondence. It goes on to talk of
  "no interference by a public authority."
  I wonder whether this will mean that we can expect some protection of privacy from excessive media prying—eventually through case law. I would like to mention a few of my thoughts, based mainly on my personal experience from 19 years as the spouse of a Member of Parliament, regarding the right to privacy for Members of Parliament, other public figures—including local councillors—their families and private individuals.
  On a sliding scale downwards, I will start at the top with our children and grandchildren. They did not ask us to go into politics, and most children of Members of Parliament, public figures and Ministers would wish that we had not—particularly when they are young. Their lives and behaviour are regarded as fair game for reporting, or misreporting. I would like to think that the Bill will eventually extend to them protection from situations which, over the years, many of our offspring have suffered.

  809
  Many years ago, I was asked to pay cash to a person with media connections. He wrote:
  "I would like to get this matter resolved so that, heaven forbid, it does not enter the public domain"
  —as polite a blackmail note as one could wish for. His dispute with one of my children was not a matter of public interest and if we had had a right to privacy, he could not have made his threat and the harassment by a Sunday newspaper of me and my family might not have happened.
  Moving down the scale, there is the middle ground. I am not sure how much protection of our private lives we can expect, since sometimes the private self and the public person become confused. I shall mention just two of many experiences—one sad, one silly. When I was kept overnight in Watford general hospital due to dangerously high blood pressure following the road traffic accident in which my husband was killed, a hospital security guard had to spend the night in the corridor outside my room to make sure that none of the reporters gathered at the hospital entrance could get through to me. Should the hospital have been put to this trouble? Should I have had that additional stress?
  The other incident—the previous year—consisted of a telephone call from the News of the World asking, in an accusing tone, whether I was aware that a massage parlour was operating across the road. I was not, and I am unsure to this day what I was being accused of. However, the story, like the dead donkey, was, thankfully, dropped.
  At the very bottom of the scale—and, in my view, with absolutely no right to protection—are those Members of Parliament who bring discredit to all of us by accepting cash or perks for questions, for writing to a Minister or even for booking a dining room. Investigative journalists who uncover such behaviour perform a service to this House and to democracy generally.
  The Church of England asks its clergy on ordination:
  "Will you strive to fashion your own life, and that of your household, according to the way of Christ?"
  Perhaps the oath taken by hon. Members on entering Parliament could be amended to say that we will strive to fashion our lives according to the ethics of honesty and integrity. As that is unlikely to happen, I simply ask that no right to privacy should protect hon. Members whose behaviour falls short of public expectation.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: It is always an enjoyable experience to address a packed Chamber at 6.29 pm. I declare an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, both of which judicial functions I have undertaken for some years, and in each of which it has been my duty throughout to apply the law as it is made by our elected representatives in Parliament.
  I may be the only speaker in our debate tonight who has had considerable judicial experience. That experience makes me acutely aware of the difference between the roles of the judiciary and of the legislature. To be blunt, I am against the Bill in principle. I believe it to be an attack on our democracy and a complete departure from our existing custom, whereby we in the House make the laws, and the judges apply them.
  In developing the common law and in construing statute law over the years, judges have to a very limited extent been making law rather than interpreting it, but the
  810
  Bill gives judges unprecedented licence to make new laws. The Bill says to our judges, who are not elected by or answerable to the people, "Here is a general principle. Go away and invent the law." That is not what judges are there for.
  Our constituents would be aghast if they were to understand how much power we are putting into the hands of unelected judges. We in the House are the democratically elected representatives, elected by the people for the specific purpose of making laws based on their wishes. We are being asked to hand that power to the judges. In this democracy, as in many others, the elected representatives should make the laws, and the judges interpret them.
  We have never said to our judges, "A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, usually for consideration. Now go and invent the rest of the law of contract, including the sale of goods." We have never said to the judges, "Here is another article: claims for compensation should be brought within a reasonable time. Now go off and write yourselves your own Statute of Limitations", but that is exactly what the convention does.
  It is as if we were to say to our judges, "Here is an article: people must not travel on our roads at an excessive speed. Now go off and decide for yourselves what the speed limits are to be." Much as I admire our judiciary, I do not want to be governed by the judges. It has been tried before, by the Jews in 1000 BC, when they were governed by judges who apparently took their laws direct from God. It did not work terribly well then, and I do not think that it will work terribly well in the future.
  Some say that to bring the convention into our law is some kind of progress on the human rights front, and that it is a guarantee of civil liberties to our people. I regard that argument as thoroughly bogus, because we, as democratically elected representatives, are the true guarantee of civil liberties in this country.
  I advise the House to consider the language of the articles that we will incorporate if the Bill is enacted. It is language for another time—just after the second world war, when the atrocities committed by the Nazis and others had to be dealt with—and not for the 1990s.
  Article 2 says:
  "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law."
  Article 3 says:
  "No one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
  Article 4 says:
  "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude."
  Those extremely worthwhile articles were designed to cope with the problems of another era. Today, they are nothing more than pious platitudes, lacking the clarity even of the ten commandments; their language has no relevance in this country in 1998.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to the House why, then, there has been an apparent acceleration since about 1990 in the number of cases going to the European Court of Human Rights from this country.
  Mr. Malins: I understand that some people do indeed take cases to the Court, and perhaps more from this country than from some others—after all, we have a high

  811
  population—but the reality is that very few cases are taken there. If the Bill is enacted, many, many more cases will be taken to judges here, and they will be expected to make law, which is not their function.
  To incorporate into our law, in 1998, an article prohibiting slavery is, arguably, deeply offensive, given that we were the first nation in modern times to make slavery unlawful, having abolished it in August 1834. Future historians reading this debate will be astonished by the fact that we are enacting an anti-slavery measure in 1998.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The declaration of independence in the United States promised
  "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness",
  but slavery existed there for, I think, 84 years. The leading American judge, Learned Hand, wisely said that liberty should lie in the hearts of the people, because, regardless of its status in constitutions or Bills of Rights, it was either there, in which case no court need save it, or it was not, in which case no court could save it.
  Mr. Matins: I agree entirely.
  We must think through the consequences of incorporation. I believe that the convention will be used an enormous number of times in claims to stop deportation. I cannot see how any woman of marriageable age could ever be deported to a country in which her right to marry was exercised by her relatives.
  The convention applies to all those physically present within the jurisdiction, and article 12 states:
  "women of marriageable age have the right to marry".
  A submission by some learned counsel that a woman's right to marry does not include the choice of her husband would, as Clint Eastwood is prone to say, really make my day.
  I take another example relating to article 8. China's respect for family life consists of limiting each family to one child. Will economic migrants no longer be returnable to China? We must be very cautious and look ahead. I predict that most of the claims that will be made under the convention will be challenges to deportation.
  I imagine that the founders of the convention would have regarded many recent events as absolutely absurd and nothing to do with what they had in mind in the 1940s. I cite as an example the Moroccan who was given leave to enter the Netherlands to marry a girl. After a few weeks, the marriage broke apart and the husband was to be deported for what were apparently perfectly proper reasons. However, because his wife had given birth to a child, the Government's decision to deport him was, under the article covering respect for family life, overturned on the grounds that he might—just might—want to see his daughter.
  Mr. Lock: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but, as he mistrusts and abuses the decisions of the judges in Strasbourg and does not want our own judges to exercise these powers, is he saying that he would rather this country were not a signatory to the convention?
  Mr. Malins: I speak as an individual from the Back Benches and not for my party; my view is that the current situation is the lesser of two evils.
  812
  I refer also to the case of a man who was ordered to be deported from a country that was a signatory to the convention, for proper and lawful reasons. He was discovered to have AIDS, and when he was able to show that the treatment for AIDS in the country to which he was to be deported was lamentable, he was allowed to stay under the article dealing with inhuman and degrading treatment. We will face very real problems further down the road if we incorporate the convention into our law.
  I shall say a word on the privacy debate, which I think is wholly misleading—it has nothing to do with the Bill's real vice, which is to give our judges huge, open-ended powers. The arguments about privacy should be settled in the House of Commons. The problems that we now face concerning privacy reflect the fact that we have not yet done so; we should have sorted the matter out a long time ago.
  We should consider the position of judges in, perhaps, 50 years, when they will have to apply the convention in every aspect of social policy. As Members of Parliament, we shall slowly but surely find that decision making is being taken away from us, and that decisions that should be made by elected representatives will be in the hands of unelected people. That will be a sad day for democracy.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on her courageous and moving speech, in which she referred in particular to personal traumas. The whole House will have been interested in, and learnt from, her speech.
  The 20th century has been an age of great paradox. It has witnessed barbaric examples of man's inhumanity to man, but it has also been an age in which fundamental human rights have been recognised by every advanced democracy. Those rights define the kind of world in which we want to live; they make us free; and they are necessarily matched by responsibilities. When, in society with others, we claim the right to be treated equally and with dignity and respect, we must treat our fellow citizens accordingly.
  None of this is alien to the United Kingdom; the language of rights and responsibilities is ours. Moreover, it is not alien to the Labour party, old or new. A Labour Government were in power when the United Kingdom took the lead in drafting the European convention. Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary in the great Attlee Government, ensured that the United Kingdom was the first to sign and ratify the convention. In 1966, the then Labour Government took the next step.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why did not the Labour Government of the time, who were so concerned to draft and sign the document, feel the need to go further and incorporate the convention into our domestic law?
  Mr. Stinchcombe: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, constitutional arrangements evolve. That is as it should be; constitutions are living things. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain how the constitution will change further.
  We are on a slow march to greater emancipation. In 1966, we took the next step when we allowed individual citizens to claim rights under the convention

  813
  and take the United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights. At the turn of the millennium, the new Labour Government will take another step towards emancipation when, through the Bill, they will give greater effect to the fundamental rights that the Conservative Government also recognised.
  For 50 years, not only Labour Governments, but Conservative Governments have recognised that the human rights that are embraced by the convention are legally enforceable. It is right that the new Labour Government should take the further step and say that those rights should be recognised not only in international law, but by the judges in our courts.
  I tell the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) why we should take that step; it is a simple argument. We need no lofty constitutional theory to justify the Bill, just plain common sense. The rights under the convention are already recognised, but they are enforceable only in Strasbourg. Our citizens have to wait five years and spend perhaps £30,000 to have those rights protected. Delay and expense are enemies of justice. Cutting delay and cost will enhance the legal protections of the system and make it fairer, in ways that ordinary people will understand. It will give real benefits to real people.
  Mr. Ruffley: Has the hon. Gentleman asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether further resources will be made available to furnish future litigants with the legal aid that they will need to take advantage of these new rights?
  Mr. Stinchcombe: If the hon. Gentleman has read Hansard, he will know that I contributed to the debate on the legal aid reforms when they were first proposed. I will do nothing to stand in the way of poor people's access to justice, and I am surprised that other people would contemplate doing so.
  Mr. Bercow: If this matter is one of basic common sense, why have not the Government chosen direct incorporation? Instead, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they have opted for a circuitous route and for the fast-track procedure, which does not protect parliamentary sovereignty, but promotes the convenience of the Executive. Has he nothing to say about those matters?
  Mr. Stinchcombe: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall try to deal with those points later in my speech; if I do not, I shall give way to him again.
  I do not justify the Bill on grounds of sound common sense alone. The Bill will bring other benefits, which should not be underestimated. Non-incorporation has been an ordinance of self-denial, by which our judges have been locked out of the sphere of influence. That is a terrible pity.
  The Bill will rightly end that self-denial. The jurisprudence of the convention will continue to develop. Hard and difficult decisions remain to be made and, when they are made, our judges—especially given their unique insights from the common law tradition—should be in the courts, and not looking on from the public gallery, unable to influence decisions.
  I understand that siren voices, mostly from the dinosauric right, none the less object on points of constitutional principle. I respect those arguments, even if
  814
  I do not agree with them. They tend to rest their objections on the alleged conflict between the Bill and our democratic tradition. They make two discrete assertions. The first is that entrenching certain rights will run counter to the power and ability of this Parliament, which is democratically elected and accountable, to legislate as it will according to its mandate; the second is that the Bill will drag judges into the political arena.
  I believe that I have correctly identified the constitutional objections of the hon. Member for New Forest, West, but, in my view, neither assertion stands up. Parliamentary sovereignty is not diminished by the Bill because it does not empower judges to strike down legislation, but only to declare its incompatibility with the convention. Indeed, the Bill would enhance the parliamentary sovereignty of the House in two ways. First, it provides for the fast-track procedure of which the hon. Gentleman complained, so that Parliament can address declared incompatibility readily and swiftly. Secondly, the Bill would introduce a measure by which Ministers responsible for introducing legislation to the House would have to state whether there was incompatibility.
  The net effect of those two innovations is that the House would remain free to legislate as it chooses, but when it did so it would be more able and better equipped to deal with the human rights concerns of its legislation. That is a huge stride forward. It is true to our tradition as a parliamentary democracy and yet it means that we can better protect the human rights of our people.
  The second assertion is that the judiciary would be dragged inappropriately into the political arena. The Lord Chief Justice does not believe so; nor does the noble and learned Lord Steyne, who said in 1996 when he lectured the Administrative Law Bar Association that incorporation of the convention did not entail any transfer of political power whatsoever. It would simply mean that alleged breaches of human rights would be tried in our courts rather than in Strasbourg.
  Therefore, neither of the constitutional objections to the Bill bears any critical analysis. Indeed, those people who object to the Bill on constitutional grounds will find themselves in an uncomfortable position. Either they want the convention to remain, but not the Bill, in which case they want our rights to be determined by foreign judges abroad after a five-year wait and £30,000 spent, or they want neither the Bill nor the convention, in which case, just as a new age of rights emerges from the old age of paradox, they want to turn their back on 50 years of shared political history and say that our citizens no longer have the right to be protected by the convention in that way. Neither position is sustainable. For the reasons that I have given, the case for incorporation is now compelling.
  We have heard two further detailed objections concerning privacy and the Churches. The Government are further considering both those areas of concern, which must be right as they are important and sensitive issues. I must take this opportunity to make my modest contribution to the on-going debate and deal first with the fear that the Bill would lead to a privacy law.
  I await the forthcoming amendment with great interest, but would like five points to be considered when it is being drafted. First, there is already a law of privacy under the convention. Article 8 provides the right to respect for

  815
  privacy. On occasion, the United Kingdom has already been found to be in breach of article 8 in Strasbourg. So, even if unamended, the Bill would not introduce a new law of privacy, but would simply mean that an existing law could be applied by our judges in our courtrooms.
  Secondly, the Bill does not confer on individuals the right to start proceedings against a newspaper solely on the basis of a breach of article 8 in any event. Such a claim would be available only against a public authority, and the inclusion of courts in the definition of public authority would not confer a cause of action where none before existed.
  Thirdly, we should never forget the force of article 10, as other hon. Members have made clear. It guarantees and protects the freedom of the press and would therefore be available under the Bill as a defence when the press was sued for defamation, contempt or breach of confidence. So, the amendment that is sought might harm the very freedom that the press rightly craves.
  Fourthly, it is not true to assert that the right of privacy is an untrammelled and absolute right because article 8 lists a series of grounds on which it can be interfered with, which include
  "the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
  Therefore, the convention allows the privacy right to be overridden where it is necessary to protect freedom of expression.
  Fifthly, as I have sought to make clear, the essence of the convention is a balancing of rights and responsibilities. So, the right to freedom of expression is balanced by a responsibility to respect the privacy of others, with the ultimate determinant when the two are in conflict being the public interest. If we interfere unduly with that delicate balance, allowing some to claim the protection of the convention but to deny the burden, we are treading in treacherous waters.
  As regards the Churches, I must make it clear at the outset that I appreciate both the importance and sensitivities of the issues raised—I do so as a Christian socialist. Yet again, however, I counsel caution before amendments are accepted. I do so for two reasons. First, the great strength of the Bill is the universality of its application, which is wholly appropriate in legislation that would give further protection to fundamental human rights. Secondly, if exceptions are made for some religions and not for others, not only will the principle of universality have been diluted, but we will have written discrimination into the face of a Bill that is designed to prevent it. We must also remember that article 9 already expressly protects religious freedom and article 2 of the first protocol protects the right to education in conformity with religious beliefs. So, protection is already writ large into the Bill.
  I support the Bill whole-heartedly. Nearly half a century after we drafted the convention, and more than 30 years after we gave our citizens rights under it, we should now take another step and allow the rights that we have for so long recognised in international law to be recognised here by our administrators, our decision-makers and our judges in our courts, as part of our legal system.
  816
  Even with the passing of the Bill, however, the battle for the full protection of our human rights will not end. Other steps will have to follow. I refer the hon. Member for New Forest, West to the point I argued at the outset—constitutional change is an on-going process and it does not happen overnight. In the short time available, I will set out just three of the steps that will have to be taken.
  First, we must launch a programme of retraining in the existing jurisprudence of the convention for administrators, decision-makers and lawyers. We must do so not merely for judges and students, but for existing practitioners, including solicitors and barristers, and not merely those in specialist fields of public law or judicial review. The rights will not be the exclusive province of a specialist constitutional court, but will be pleaded in tribunals and courts throughout the country in cases both civil and criminal. Our professions must be ready for the signal challenges that they will face.
  Secondly, the time will come for a human rights commission. I am pleased that the door to a commission has been left open. One day, we will have to walk through that door and establish a commission: one which would further promote public awareness and acceptance of human rights standards, enhance the scrutinising powers of Parliament as an aid to increased compliance, play a key role in investigating allegations of human rights abuse, and be able to instigate legal proceedings in its own right, so that the rights of all our citizens can be more fully protected—especially given the relatively restrictive view of standing embraced by the Bill.
  Thirdly, the best way for the Government to achieve progress in both those fields would be by appointing a human rights commissioner soon, to push the agenda forward.
  I close with this thought for the Minister. The Bill will enhance people's awareness of human rights and their expectations. Some of those expectations will be political and not merely legal. We cannot pass legislation that people will read as providing a right to a home without being asked to build the homes to house the homeless. We cannot pass legislation that people will read as providing a right to education, without being asked to invest in education so that our schools can be made centres of excellence for all our children. People will demand that the rights enshrined by the convention are realisable and effective. This and any successor Government will have the responsibility of meeting those demands politically as well as legally.
  The new Labour Government are rebuilding an outdated constitution so that power will be more widely dispersed, our democratic tradition maintained, but renewed, and the citizen better protected. The Bill lies at the heart of that endeavour. There is no greater way to end the century of paradox than to pass this Bill, so that we can play our part in creating a global Bill for the protection of human rights.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: In the interests of brevity and, I hope, clarity, I would like to begin by summarising my views and then develop a few aspects in greater depth. My first point, which is accepted by all hon. Members, is that this is an important Bill. We are changing greatly the historic balance that has

  817
  existed between the judiciary and Parliament. I find that undesirable. Secondly, we are submitting this House and our courts to much greater external control and supervision than we have historically thought right. I find that even more undesirable, but that is not the end of the matter.
  The essential problem flows not from the Bill but from the convention. The House must consider whether we should remain a party to the convention or derogate from it. That question has not been addressed very directly, but I think that it should be. My conclusion is that while there is a powerful argument in favour of derogation, I would stick with the convention. That is partly because I think that that is politically desirable and partly because I think that it is right in principle.
  My next conclusion is, therefore, that we contemplate the future on the basis that this country will remain a party to the convention for as long ahead as we can see. Given that, the next question is whether we should stick with things as they are or incorporate. Not without difficulty, I have concluded that we should incorporate, because I think that the advantages of incorporating the convention into domestic law outweigh the very real disadvantages. I am in principle in favour of incorporation.
  Where I disagree profoundly with the Government and the Liberal Democrats is in respect of the remedial order procedure. That is a serious defect of the Bill. The Government are contemplating that important primary legislation should be changed by secondary legislation. I regard that as wrong in principle. To summarise my conclusions, notwithstanding the very powerful objections that can be made against incorporation, I favour the principle of incorporation, but do not agree with the remedial order procedure provided for in the Bill. As long as that remains in its present form, I will not support the Bill.
  I would like to amplify one or two of my points, starting with a word or two on the concept of a Bill of Rights. For as long as I have been interested in politics, which is now some 35 or 40 years, people have invoked the concept of a Bill of Rights as a way of entrenching the rights of the citizen against an over-mighty Government. My father made important speeches on the point in the late 1970s with regard to the elected dictatorship. He was right. The power invested in the Executive, as long they retain a majority in this House, can be oppressive. Indeed, we may find that it will be exercised in that way by the Government with the size of their majority.
  The question is how to address the problem. Many people have argued for a Bill of Rights as a bulwark against such erosion of rights. I do not accept that, for the following reason. The Bill would either be so particular that it dealt with every eventuality, which is simply not practical and will not happen, or general and leave the judges to apply the general propositions to particular circumstances and cases. That is what this Bill, and the convention, are about. I find that unacceptable in principle because it creates a body of judge-made statute law. I am very much against that. I believe that the principal rights of individuals should be dealt with by this House. One has only to examine the convention to see the force of that argument.
  818
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made some important points about deportation. He was right about that, but there will also be reference to what is meant by "family" or "marriage" in the convention. Judges will have something to say about that, which is likely to distress my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Such matters should be dealt with by the House. It as a result of my conclusion on those matters that I have long since come to believe that an elected second Chamber, not a Bill of Rights, is the proper way to safeguard the rights of citizens.
  I have two points on the extent to which change will be brought about by the Bill. First, we are submitting the authority of this House, and of the United Kingdom courts, to a range of external authorities, institutions and bodies. For example, all legislation—present, past, future—will have to be considered against the context of the convention; and not only this convention but future protocols; and not only this convention and future protocols but the interpretation that the other judges in the Strasbourg Court and elsewhere place upon it. That is a substantial erosion of parliamentary sovereignty.
  The second fundamental change is that we are placing upon United Kingdom judges the obligation and duty to interpret the general expression of views in the convention in a way that historically we have thought inappropriate. We are asking them to translate into particular rights the general rights set out in the convention. I believe that that is in principle undesirable.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's lucid contributions with interest. What does he consider to be the difference between having judges in Brussels interpret the general propositions enshrined in the convention and having it done by British judges versed in the parliamentary tradition and the essential differences between the continental and United Kingdom systems? Surely he should argue for the devolution of decision—judge-based law—to Britain, which is what the Bill proposes.
  Mr. Hogg: I am going to. That is why I began by summarising my conclusions. I have concluded that incorporation is the least bad of the options available, but it is right that we should see how significant the changes are. The point that I was making when the hon. Gentleman very fairly intervened was that the extent of the change brought about by the Bill and the convention is great, but at the beginning I pointed out that the essential point is not the Bill but the convention. One has to ask whether we should remain a party to the convention. Powerful arguments can be lodged against that. It is worth reading the debates in the other place. For example, Lord Beloff reminded the other House that this was an international convention when it was introduced and was not intended to create, at least for democratic states, to use his words, a charter of rights.
  We must consider, given the disadvantages and the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty to which I referred, whether we should denounce the convention. My view is that that would be wrong. It would not only be wrong but politically impossible. It is not politically possible because the political price, both international and national, is too high. It would be wrong because we are seeking to encourage many former communist states to improve the quality of their civil rights, and I do not think that for us

  819
  to denounce the convention would be a good example to them. Therefore, my conclusion is that notwithstanding the fact that there are many problems associated with the convention so far as it erodes sovereignty, we must stick with it.
  Mr. Browne: The House will no doubt be instructed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to Lord Beloff in another place. To put those remarks in context, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should note that Lord Renton, who was a member of Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe in 1951 and 1952, intervened to assure Lord Beloff that, at the time, the committee did not merely consider the convention to be a matter between Governments but one on which the committee wanted to protect the interests of all the people of all the countries represented at the Council of Europe.
  Mr. Hogg: That is perfectly true, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to bear in mind three other points. First, Lord Beloff said that that was not how the convention was presented to the country. Secondly, Mr. Ungoed Thomas, who was then representing the interests of the Labour party at the convention, argued against incorporation on the basis that it was not intended to create a charter of rights. He might also care to look at his own Government's White Paper, in particular paragraph 1.11, where he will find that the convention was referred to as an international convention in the first instance.
  Given that we will have a convention for the foreseeable future, is it right that we should leave the proceedings as they are, in Strasbourg, or move to incorporation? My view is that incorporation is right. I have come to the conclusion that if one has a convention, it is important that there should be ready access to the rights reflected in it. It is undesirable in terms of cost and complexity that British citizens who wish to invoke those rights should have to go to Strasbourg in first instance. Therefore, my conclusion is that, given a convention, better by far that we have incorporation.
  I also accept the argument that if we have incorporation, it is likely that the presence of United Kingdom judges in the first instance will have a beneficial effect on our collective national interest because the process will help to inform the Strasbourg Court of some of our judicial principles and constitutional practices which it would wish to take fully into account.
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend is making an interesting point, but he is aware that the Strasbourg judges act according to what they call the margin of appreciation. They tend not to interfere in social and moral matters which they deem to be the proper territory of national judges. No such consideration will apply to our judges.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has raised a serious point. He is right to say that the concept of the margin of appreciation is similar to the concept of subsidiarity in relation to the European Union.
  One of the things that has been most troubling about the Strasbourg Court over many years has been its willingness to develop the general terms reflected in the
  820
  convention to meet a range of circumstances that the founding fathers never contemplated. One of the most important changes that we could try to bring about within the Strasbourg Court is to reassert the principle of the margin of appreciation—that is the doctrine of subsidiarity—so that it does not seek to over-extend the language of the convention. My hope is that by using the United Kingdom courts as the courts of first instance regarding the convention we will see a greater caution on the part of the Strasbourg Court to intervene in matters that are peculiarly the province of Parliament.
  Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that one of the problems with the present system of direct reference is that the Strasbourg Court is in a poor position to determine factual matters and many of the basic grounds on which a ruling needs to be made? One of the advantages of incorporation would be precisely to provide the necessary judicial input which would certainly facilitate any subsequent decisions by that Court.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. The process of gathering evidence is more difficult for the Strasbourg Court, and the processes are more convoluted, than would be the case in United Kingdom courts. Furthermore, the UK judiciary can take judicial notice of a range of matters which will be unknown to the Strasbourg judiciary. I conclude that incorporation is, in principle, the least undesirable of the options before the House.
  That judgment is not conclusive as to whether we should support the Bill, because I am extremely unhappy with the provisions known as the remedial order process, as outlined in clauses 10, 11 and 12. Those provisions are wrong. I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, saw fit to support them.
  The plain truth is that if one wants to amend primary legislation, one should use primary legislation to do so. The Home Secretary perfectly fairly quoted some examples against that, but I am bound to say that I have always opposed secondary legislation as a means of creating substantive rights or imposing substantive burdens, for two reasons. First, it is not amendable and, secondly, debate, if there be debate, is extremely limited. Of course I recognise that we are talking about the affirmative resolution, which provides for debate, but that is not true of the negative resolution procedure. But in any event, debate is extremely limited and the document is not amendable.
  There may a small number of cases when the urgency is such that secondary legislation is the appropriate means to amend primary legislation. The Home Secretary may or may not be able to cite some examples of that, but in the generality of cases that should not be. Such a practice is profoundly undemocratic, and unless and until the Bill is changed to reflect that, I cannot support it.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that as a normal canon of statutory interpretation, when Parliament enacts a measure which is at variance with a pre-legislated Act, the presumption of the court will be that it is intended to repeal it? In that circumstance, Parliament would not normally be invited

  821
  even to consider whether or not change was necessary by subordinate or any other form of legislation. The judge would make that determination.
  Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with that broad statement of statutory interpretation. The plain truth is that the first principle that the courts will always try to uphold is to give a proper interpretation to the statute before it. Where statutes are irreconcilable, one or other must be preferred. Fortunately, that happens relatively seldom. The problem with the convention is that, as I have said before, it is a constantly changing body of law. Although one has the general language of the convention, what it actually means in relation to individuals or institutions is what judges have said that it means over a period of time. By making an interpretation of a judicial kind, one is fundamentally altering the state and the nature of the convention.
  If one wants to change the rights and obligations, the burdens and entitlements that the House, by primary legislation, has previously imposed or conferred upon the citizenry, it should be done by primary legislation and not by an order, which is debated for an hour and a half in some place—probably in this Chamber—and is unamendable. That is not a small thing, but a great one. Until the Bill is suitably amended, it will not enjoy my support.
  7.19 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I warmly welcome the Bill because it will establish a national standard for ethical government, and for ethical relations between people and public institutions. That is especially important at a time when we are devolving power. To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that the most important feature of the British constitution is to retain every possible spot of power in this place, but that is not what the Government are committed to. They have been rearranging the constitution to devolve power closer to people; that is right and it was in the manifesto on which we were elected. It is absolutely necessary that we have a clear, unifying national ethical framework for that devolution of power and that is what the Bill provides.
  Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Lady content to have power devolved effectively to judges, who are not subject to the will of the people in the way that Members of Parliament are? The people can get rid of the rascals here if they do not like them.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I do not believe that that is what is happening. We are devolving power to the people. If the judges' power conflicts with any decision of this House, there is a mechanism whereby the House is invited to look again at the legislation to ensure that all our laws contribute to and protect human rights.
  It is essential that every institution and the whole of society fall within the framework of the human rights legislation that we establish. That is one of the reasons why I was deeply concerned by some of the anxieties voiced in the other place by the Church, the press and the Army, and their suggestion that the problems they genuinely perceived within the legislation should be dealt with by exempting their institutions from the framework of rights established by the Bill. I commend
  822
  my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the way in which he has responded to those concerns. I agree that there is no need for Britain's press to be frightened that the Bill will introduce a privacy law by the back door. If we look at the interpretation of human rights legislation, not only in Europe, but elsewhere, we see that it has been one of the greatest protectors of the freedom of the press. Article 10 of the European convention on human rights has, in practice, been interpreted in such a way as to ensure that the freedom of the press is secured.
  Mr. Bercow: In the light of those comments, would the hon. Lady concede that the Lord Chancellor was unwise to predict the development by the courts of a law of privacy in this country in his speech on 27 July 1997?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I should never dream of calling my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor unwise—it is not worth my while to do so. However, I do not believe that the development of a law of privacy is in any way affected by the Bill. In the development of common law, there have been some moves in that direction which are unrelated to what happens at Strasbourg. In my judgment, the Bill and the requirement to take into account article 10 matters make it quite clear that we respect the freedom of the press. The changes announced today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the detail of which I have not been able to examine more carefully than any other hon. Member, seem to make it clear that he expects the press to remain within the context of a human rights ethos and framework.
  I hope that when holding discussions with those who are concerned about the impact on religious bodies, my right hon. Friend will take exactly the same approach. Their fears are genuine, just as are the fears of those who are concerned about a privacy law, but they are unfounded. If my right hon. Friend responds to those fears, I urge him to respond in the same way. It is only when human rights are universal and apply to everybody that they are effective. It is no good having particular interests in society claiming an exemption from human rights. I am especially concerned that the interests of which we have heard most are not those of people whose rights are currently least respected, but those to whom the institutions of Parliament and Government have traditionally listened carefully.
  Yesterday, I went through a powerful experience at a meeting in Slough. The Muslim community met to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the founding of Pakistan. People here may be aware that there have been painful tensions between the Sikh and Muslim communities in Slough, with incidents of violence on the streets and between the communities. At that meeting, a Sikh got up and recited a poem in Punjabi and, if my Punjabi was better, I might have been able to share it in the original language with hon. Members, but I am unable to do so. However, even though I do not understand Punjabi, I understood the poem's refrain and I shall share that with the House. It was, "It happens to me and it happens to you." The story of the poem was, "You come from the Indian sub-continent with a degree and people treat it like a piece of toilet paper—it happens to me, it happens to you. You get into debt with the bank and have to sort out your life—it happens to me, it happens to you."

  823
  That man recognised the power of the universality of human rights. In that simple poem, he said to his audience, with whom he had deep disagreements on fundamental issues, that there are more things that unite us and more experiences we have in common than there are those that separate us. That is the power of the Bill.
  Mr. Leigh: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for saying this, but her thinking is somewhat muddled. We have a universal right to practise a religious faith of our choosing; equally, religious faiths have a right to conduct their own affairs in the way that they wish. Those rights have to exist side by side. The difficulty is that the Bill and the convention it incorporates attack the rights of religious bodies to conduct their affairs in the way they choose, which is why they are wrong.
  Fiona Mactaggart: No, the hon. Gentleman has quite misunderstood the Bill and the convention which, in every right—apart from the right to freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment—makes specific reference to the need to balance that right with other rights. There are specific guarantees for the rights to freedom of religious thought and to freedom of religious observance. International human rights instruments such as the convention—which was written at a time when, because of the impact of the war, the public felt strongly that the right to religious practice and observance should be protected—have played a significant role in protecting religious freedoms and rights of free speech.
  Our real problem is that few people understand the concept that my constituent understood: the radical power of connecting people's experiences of the denial of rights. That is what the Bill is able to do. Too many of us have received letters from constituents who, for example, cannot get a housing transfer or do not like the way in which their bank has treated them and say, "I want you to take my case to Europe." Perhaps I get such demands more frequently than other hon. Members, because my constituents know that I once participated in a successful case against the United Kingdom Government at Strasbourg. One of the reasons why people make such demands is that there is insufficient understanding of the concept of human rights in the United Kingdom.
  We have no human rights education. Most Commonwealth countries place a responsibility on the Government to educate their people in human rights. In creating a new democratic constitution, South Africa had a fabulous education programme on human rights which resulted in more than 1 million people contributing to consultation on their own Bill of Rights. Today, there is education in every school in South Africa, dealing with precisely those instances in which rights conflict.
  Mr. Ruffley: Is the hon. Lady very disappointed with Ministers about the Bill's failure to include provision for a human rights commission?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I shall deal with exactly that matter in a moment.
  Other countries have taken that responsibility to educate people on human rights, contributing not only to better law making and to a better understanding of the
  824
  law, but to people being able to exercise their rights more effectively. Those people know the difference between a human right and a gripe—which is a very important difference for people to understand. In Indian law, there is a wonderful phrase about "combating illiteracy" in human rights. That is a powerful concept.
  It is important that we do that job of educating people on human rights. I therefore hope that we might soon create a commission to take on part of that job, although I quite understand why it is difficult to establish one right now. We shall have to create a system in which bodies currently charged with human rights responsibilities, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, can do their job and in which there is parity between those bodies, but in which there is an overarching human rights framework. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the possibility of creating a commission as soon as the Bill is well bedded in.
  Until we establish a commission, I urge the Government to take urgent action on another matter that was in the White Paper: creating in the House a Committee on human rights. I have read the debate on the Bill in the other place. Those in the other place have distinguished themselves in dealing with the human rights issue and could make a substantial contribution to such a Committee. I therefore believe that there is a strong argument for such a Committee to be a joint one of both Houses. Many of those in the other place have participated in human rights cases, both in Strasbourg and internationally.
  Even if we cannot immediately create a commission, we should create without delay a Joint Committee. I suggest four jobs for the Committee to do urgently. First—in performing the tasks that have been set for Ministers under clause 19 of the Bill—it should produce a statement on new legislation and its compatibility with the convention. Statements should be a powerful assessment—an audit—of the human rights impact of proposed legislation. We do not want statements to be merely a quick gesture stating that the Minister is confident that there will be no conflict; let us have an assessment of how legislation will advance and develop.
  Secondly, the Committee should examine the issues—which I have already mentioned—of public education and of creating a real culture of rights.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady's point about the Committee examining compatibility with the convention is sound. Might I suggest that that function could be performed also by a Special Standing Committee? As she will know, there is provision for Special Standing Committees to take evidence. It would be extremely helpful if the Standing Committee considering a Bill were empowered to take evidence from those who felt that the Bill's provisions contravened the convention.
  Fiona Mactaggart: That is a very interesting proposal. The Joint Committee might propose that that should happen in cases in which there were questions about compatibility between the convention and a Bill. How to produce such an impact statement and how to audit the human rights implications of new legislation would be sensible matters for a Joint Committee to examine.
  Thirdly, the Joint Committee should examine the matter of access to rights and legal representation. Earlier in the debate, I mentioned the case of Abdulaziz, Balkandali and

  825
  Cabales, which I played a part in. The case involved three women who were separated from their foreign husbands by United Kingdom immigration rules, but was successfully settled in Strasbourg. We were able to represent them only because of the generosity of solicitors who took the case on a no-win, no-fee basis. I remember best the delay and difficulty in taking the case to Strasbourg, which certainly damaged the women's family life and caused them great distress.
  The women in that case were lucky. They were in contact early with a campaign and representation organisation that could take up their case. We were lucky because a Committee in the other place had already decided that the new immigration rules contravened the convention—therefore, much of the homework had already been done. The case also demonstrates the House's ability to ignore advice stating that the rules or regulations that it passes sometimes abuse human rights. That is what happened in that case. Therefore, although we have to ensure that people have access to well-trained and effective representation, such access will not be available instantly. A Joint Committee could examine the issue.
  Fourthly, the Committee should examine whether there is a case for the United Kingdom to sign up to additional protocols and to other international human rights legislation. We have not signed very many of the current protocols, including some of those under the international covenant on civil and political rights, but there is a strong case for us to do so.
  Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Government to provide parliamentary time for the House to complete the work of abolishing capital punishment by eliminating the last vestiges of that heinous punishment?
  Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend made precisely the point to which I was alluding. It is precisely because of that issue that I have always found it very difficult to stand side-by-side with America—which still regularly executes its own citizens—as great defenders of human rights.
  Those are the tasks that I think that the Joint Committee should examine. To bring rights home, we need not only a legislative framework, but action. I hope that we shall be able swiftly to rid ourselves of the barriers to creating a human rights commission, which would be able to perform those tasks even more effectively than a Joint Committee.
  The Bill is a genuinely modernising Bill. People are sometimes slick and sneering about modernising government, but the Bill is what modernising government is all about. It is about creating a framework of rights, helping people realise their rights and providing them with a mechanism for exercising those rights without requiring them to have undue expertise or excessive cash.
  Passing the Bill is one of the biggest ways in which we can transform the United Kingdom. It is innovatory, and it will fundamentally change the relationship between Government and the people—not in a manner that reduces our democracy, but in one that extends it. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: The Government have introduced the Bill under the banner—the soundbite—"bringing rights home". The problem is that that conceals the Bill's real thrust: to effect a massive constitutional shift from the House to unelected judges. That is a constitutional change of epic proportions.
  In considering our response to the Bill, hon. Members should realise that United Kingdom judges will be making law in a way that they have never done before. Even worse, the Bill will drag judges into politics as they have never been involved before. In a very real way, they will be politicised.
  We know that Ministers accept that point. From paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper "Rights Brought Home", and from some of the Lord Chancellor's remarks, it is obvious that the Government accept that judges will become more important in public policy making. The Government do not make much of a secret of it, but, judging from the remarks of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is obvious that Conservative Members are worried that unelected judges are being given those powers at the expense of elected representatives in the House.
  When we talk about a new power of judge-made legislation, we hear the charge that judges have always made law. Something like the law of negligence was developed on a case-law basis in the 19th century, so judge-made law did bring into effect a law of negligence. However, we are talking about judge-made law in relation to things much more important than the law of negligence.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, judge-made law will be possible because of the wide ambit of the European convention articles. They are so widely drafted that there is a great deal of space to allow domestic judges in this country to make up new law.
  Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that not only a great deal of leeway, but a great deal of cost is involved? As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) said, judgments on this basis will come with a price tag—a right to education, a right to health care, and so on.
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend is exactly right in that respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking ably gave the reasons for the wide drafting and the wide ambit—the vague, woolly, imprecise language—of the convention articles. In the 1940s and 1950s, it was never intended that these widely drawn articles would be directly incorporated into English law, and they were not so incorporated then. Those articles were an important beacon—a symbol—for European democracies that were freshly emerging after the second world war, but they were never intended to be of practical effect in this country.
  It follows from what I have said that English judges will be able to challenge primary legislation already extant in this country. We know that this is not only possible, but likely because of clause 4, which provides for a "declaration of incompatibility." Certain problems arise from that declaration of incompatibility, which I should very much like the Minister to answer when replying to the debate.

  827
  If an English judge, interpreting the convention, finds that a primary piece of legislation in this country is in conflict with a convention article, under what obligation or duty is a member of the Executive—a Minister in the relevant Department—to lay an Order in Council? We have yet to receive a clear answer to that. It seems to me that the judge's finding will be of persuasive effect, but what happens if the Minister chooses not to lay an Order in Council? If the Order in Council is not laid, are we to assume that a litigant will go to the Strasbourg Court to compel the Minister to lay such an order?
  Mr. Browne: One of the fundamental criticisms that the hon. Gentleman makes concerns the widely drafted nature of the articles of the convention. Is it part of his thesis that our citizens should be denied access to those rights because they are widely drafted, or would he continue to allow our citizens to have access to those rights through the Court in Strasbourg?
  Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. We are talking about the new—and, in our view, unjustified—powers that are given to English judges at the expense of Members of the House. That is the argument that I seek to make, and which Conservative Members have made.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Mr. Ruffley: I will not give way.
  The idea that the domestic courts in this country can challenge primary legislation is troublesome because of the way in which Ministers may have to respond by laying Orders in Council. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, there is grave disquiet on the Conservative Benches about the way in which orders can be laid which will amend the offending piece of primary legislation. The order will not be the subject of debate. I am sure—
  Mr. Lock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: No.
  What is the effect of a judge deciding that a piece of primary legislation in this country is in conflict with the convention and that, therefore, an Order in Council should be laid? What happens if hon. Members in this place consider that the judge is wrong? We have 90 minutes or so in which to debate an affirmative resolution. We cannot test the proposition; we cannot have a full and frank debate. It is a fast-track procedure.
  When we consider that fast-track procedure, we all see the baleful influence of the Lord Chancellor; it bears his imprint. It is unfortunate that we have a Lord Chancellor who is so arrogant and high-handed in his treatment of the House. Only he could come up with a fast-track procedure. In New Zealand, any clash between a human rights convention article and primary legislation must be amended by full primary legislation—not by some Order in Council, banged through on the nod. That is a fundamental constitutional issue, which no Labour Member has even tried to address.
  828
  I argue that the Home Secretary—and the Lord Chancellor in another place—is disingenuous in arguing that the sovereignty of Parliament is protected. Obviously, if judges wish to interpret the convention articles in a way that is in conflict with primary legislation extant in this country, they can de facto strike it down. We await answers to that specific question from Ministers at the end of the debate.
  The politicisation of the judiciary is inevitable; I shall explain why. If the European convention on human rights is incorporated in domestic law, all sorts of public policy issues could fall to be determined by domestic judges.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory that, at present, if a British citizen wishes to pursue what he or she believes to be an infringement of their human rights, it currently takes five years, and approximately £30,000, for him or her to do so? If the hon. Gentleman feels that what we are suggesting is so unsatisfactory, does he regard the present set-up as a satisfactory way for ordinary British citizens to protect their human rights?
  Mr. Ruffley: What I find unsatisfactory is the idea of judges being given powers to make law on important public policy issues; I was about to list those issues. If the European convention is incorporated into domestic law by the Bill, for the first time, judges will make law on the right to an abortion, on the right to life, on the closed shop and on the right to privacy. Those are important issues, on which, in our judgment, the law should not fall to be invented by judges. The discussion of important laws, relating to the matters that I have listed, is a matter for this place, not for domestic judges.
  I think it was Lord McCluskey who, in his very distinguished Reith lectures in the 1980s, said that the problem with Bills of Rights and the incorporation of the European convention on human rights is that one makes the mistake of dressing up policy issues as though they were legal issues. That is the crux of our argument.
  It seems to me that something more flows from the politicisation of our judiciary—the way in which judges will be obliged to make up laws on abortion, on privacy and, conceivably, on euthanasia—namely, the prospect of a Ministry of justice tampering with the composition of the Bench. It seems to us that, in the course of his egomaniacal odyssey through Whitehall, the Lord Chancellor will seek to create a Ministry of justice; and that either he or his successors will try to tamper with the composition of the Bench—introducing quotas for race, gender and so on. That is a real threat. We have already witnessed the politicisation of the USA Supreme Court under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. I foresee the same happening under a "new Labour" Administration if the Bill is passed.
  I believe that this is a bad Bill because it introduces the rule of lawyers to areas that should properly be the preserve of this House. When they finally wake up to what has happened, the British people will be appalled by

  829
  what the Government are doing. That is why I support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Quite a number of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. It would help them all if those who are called keep their eye on the time.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: As we have been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), it is fitting that a Labour Government should introduce the Bill, since it was a Labour Government who in 1966, 13 years after ratification of the convention, first accepted the right of individual petition and the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Now the Government are delivering their manifesto commitment, and, in so doing, they are taking another step towards modernising our constitution. Speaking on that very theme in March 1993, the then leader of the Labour party, John Smith, said:
  "The quickest and simplest way of achieving the democratic and legal establishment of a substantial package of Human Rights would be by incorporating into British law the European Convention on Human Rights."
  That is what we are doing.
  The case for incorporation since 1953, when we ratified the convention, has been forcefully argued by a significant number of distinguished political and legal figures, including senior members of the judiciary. Although the argument has been supported by individual Conservatives, they have never supported it collectively. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, the arguments were supported by many current Conservative Front Benchers but never by the Conservative party itself.
  The Conservative contributions today have revealed a schizophrenic approach which demands clarification. If Conservative Members support the convention and the principles behind the Bill, it is surely not unreasonable to ask them whether they still oppose incorporation or whether they support it. It is all very well rehearsing arguments, but the Opposition must adopt a constitutional position on a matter as important as this—do they support or reject incorporation of the convention? Certain individual Conservatives have explained their position, but it remains difficult to determine the Opposition's position in principle, both here and in the other place. And it will not do to point out that the Conservatives are the Opposition, not the Government.
  The Conservatives' reasoned amendment expresses their strong belief in human rights. How are those listening to the debate to interpret that sentiment in the light of the fact—this is where the hypocrisy comes in—that, without incorporation, our people have to go to Strasbourg to vindicate their rights, as the convention is not yet part of domestic law? The Opposition have a constitutional responsibility, therefore, to explain their position unequivocally on a matter of such importance.
  There have been many examples of the Opposition's contradictory approach, most particularly in the opening speech by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). He said that the
  830
  convention should be applied in a way that was sensitive to the British way of life. There is surely no better way of ensuring that than making the rights in the convention justiciable in our courts. Although the right hon. Gentleman was called upon to explain that apparent contradiction, and promised to do so, he never did. He was reminded that he appeared content to allow European judges to interpret the human rights convention, and thereafter to accept that we should legislate in response to those judges' decisions, but that he did not wish to allow our judges the same freedom. Somehow he never got round to answering that point. Let us hope that he gets round to it soon.
  We need to consider the place of the European convention in UK law. As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, said in his maiden speech in the other place, the starting point is that ours is a state that ratified the convention, so we are bound in international law to honour the obligations that we have undertaken—loosely worded or not, I might add; and when any breach of the convention has been established by any public authority, we are bound to amend our laws and procedures to make good the breach and prevent any recurrence.
  We are not dealing with rights that have been foisted on us. Our courts have repeatedly stated that these rights are expressions of obvious humanitarian principles. It is significant that British lawyers drafted the convention; and that, in drafting the constitutions of many Commonwealth countries, we have incorporated the convention in them. By guaranteeing everyone the right to claim convention rights against public authorities in our courts, we are merely bringing home those rights, as the Secretary of State reminded us. It is nonsensical and unjust that our citizens cannot enforce their rights without first exhausting all domestic remedies and thereafter taking the long and costly road to Strasbourg.
  Our citizens, moreover, are entitled to have confidence in our public authorities and courts. It undermines that confidence to learn that, having exhausted domestic remedies, elsewhere—in Europe—there is an opportunity for justice that is denied to the domestic litigant. Incorporation of the convention will create a climate of confidence in the idea that basic human rights and fundamental freedoms can be enforced as well in the UK as anywhere else in the world.
  The Bill should be seen as the beginning of a process of creating a culture of respect for individual rights. That culture must become mainstream in the lives of our citizens, not the marginal add-on it is now.
  I wish at this point to invite the House to consider a Scottish element. The point at which the Scotland Bill and the Human Rights Bill intersect has implications for Scotland and the UK. In the words of the Scottish Human Rights Centre:
  "Together they represent an historical milestone in enabling Scotland to begin to develop a modern human rights agenda."
  Taken together, the Bills enable a High Court and Court of Session to strike down any Act of the Scottish Parliament or action of a Scottish Minister which is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Nevertheless the UK Parliament's claim of absolute sovereignty is recognised; and the superior courts in Scotland, as in England and Wales, will be able to make an open declaration of incompatibility only in relation to primary legislation of this Parliament—

  831
  although they will continue, as they do now on both sides of the border, to be able to declare secondary legislation ultra vires.
  That difference quite properly reflects devolution. Both jurisdictions have different constitutional traditions and differing forms of incorporation are consistent with each.
  I move on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). While the Bill will help to promote the awareness of human rights in our society, it does not provide for the establishment of a human rights commission. In answer to a point made during my hon. Friend's speech, it is a disappointment to me that the Bill does not do so. I accept that the Government do not see that as a central task of the Bill, and I am reassured by the comments of the Home Secretary, and of the Lord Chancellor in another place, that the establishment of such a commission is not ruled out in future. I take this opportunity to make a plea for a human rights commission, the primary aim of which would be to promote the ideas contained in the convention and to ensure that those ideas promote the development of a human rights culture.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. As is probably well known to my colleagues and possibly to other hon. Members, I have long been a supporter of the incorporation of a human rights Bill into our law.
  I am mindful of the fact that the objections expressed by many of my colleagues have real force. There is no point in pretending that the incorporation will not effect a major change in the way in which we approach our legal system and the separation of powers. It will.
  Historically, we have been blessed in this country by the notion of freedom. Parliament has been excellent at sustaining freedom under the law. That may have been partly an accident of history, but it has been one of our great success stories. It has been born of Parliament respecting the freedom of the individual and allowing the judiciary a strict and limited role in the interpretation of rights as between citizens, and rights as between citizens and the state.
  We cannot escape the fact that society is becoming far more complex. Above all, the power of Government and the demands that it places on individual citizens has grown immeasurably over the past 50 years.
  Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend turn his attention to the potential problem with the convention, which is that the rights envisaged, rather than being limitations on the power of the state, are claims on the power of the state, which require powers on the part of the Executive to deliver, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) so carefully pointed out?
  Mr. Grieve: I am mindful of that, and will deal with the matter in a moment. As the impositions have increased, so has the need to provide protection by asserting rights rather than freedoms. That is why we signed up to the convention when it emerged through the Council of Europe, and why we have respected it,
  832
  although we may often be irritated by some of the ways in which it is applied. It has never been suggested in the House that we should resile from it by withdrawal.
  I am alive to the fact that, if incorporation takes place, there will be changes, but I believe that the balance is in favour of incorporation because it will allow judicial input in the UK into the way in which the convention evolves.
  There is an argument, which has often exercised me, that we should move away from the convention entirely and have our own Bill of Rights. I have felt that powerfully from time to time, but I see this Bill as a beginning. It is a beginning because I do not see that it will produce anything that is written in stone. If it does not work—I can foresee that there may be problems associated with it—we shall have to address them and, if necessary, change the legislation.
  When all that has been said, I cannot disagree with the principle of incorporation, and above all the principle of allowing for the interpretation of the convention to be patriated—repatriated is not the right word. I have sufficient faith in the impartiality of our national judiciary to believe, first, that it has not the slightest intention of getting dragged into the political morass, and, secondly, that it will be capable of interpreting the convention, and interpreting it in a way that respects national conventions and traditions, in a manner that will enhance its workability.
  Having made a few points in favour of incorporation, I must express some serious reservations about the way in which the Bill has been drafted. One of those I find fundamental—so much so that I could not support the Bill if it continues in its present form. I refer to the remedial clauses, to which I ask the Government to give most careful thought.
  Part of the problem in the House—I know that I have not been here very long, having been elected only last May—is that insufficient time and attention are given to the way in which we act as a legislature. Governments of every colour continually fall prey to the temptation to cut corners, to prevent legislative scrutiny by the House. It does us little credit. If the new system is to work, and if it is to deliver to the citizens of this country an enhancement of their rights, Parliament will have to act in tandem with the courts.
  There will be occasions when conflicts arise and those conflicts will have to be resolved by Parliament paying attention to the extent to which the wording of the convention may impinge on our need to legislate and to maintain other rights that we consider important. We cannot do that if the system in operation allows only a 90-minute debate on an affirmative resolution. To suggest that that is the proper way of going about it is to hold the House in contempt. The only way in which we can go about it is with a willingness to have proper debate, for the debate to be public, and for people to notice as part of the process of understanding and developing human rights that there are areas of conflict that are not simply brushed under the carpet, so that they can make an informed decision about whether the legislation will work in practice.
  I return to the fact that the Bill's practical effect may well be at variance with the way in which people view the theory of it. What looks good on paper, and what appears to affirm rights and obligations that most of us

  833
  would hold to be innocuous and important and with very little down side may turn out in practice to have complex implications that will have to be reconciled by the House.
  As I said in my maiden speech, I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to debate it and to discuss it carefully in Committee. There are other flaws in it. To mention only one, the lack of appeal for the Government to the Court at Strasbourg raises complex issues about how parity will be maintained between our national human rights and those at European level. That is one of the reasons why, in the past, I have felt that a national human rights Bill might be better. I hope that the Government will address that matter too, as the Bill progresses.
  Having said all that, I would be denying my own conscience and feelings in the matter if I did not say that I believe that incorporation is a sensible step forward. I reserve my position on the Bill at present because it has a fatal flaw in the remedial clauses that will take us in the wrong direction. If we can get the Bill into a condition that I consider will make it workable and able to offer a real opportunity to increase human rights in this country, it will have my support.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. David Lock: I am glad to be called to speak in this important debate and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends who have brought this excellent Bill before the House. The proposed legislation is at the foundation of the Labour party's project to modernise our democracy.
  Democracy is generally about the rights of the majority, but human rights are about the interests of a minority—even a minority of one. The Bill is not about the things that people do of which we approve; it is about the things that people do of which many of us disapprove—when individual freedom conflicts with the moral and political norms of society. Protection of that freedom is very important in a democracy—particularly in a democracy, where, until it was restrained by European legislation, Parliament could do no wrong.
  The Bill is also welcome because it gives positive rights to our citizens that are justiciable in British courts for the first time. For example, Mr. Malone discovered that his telephone was being tapped, so he took action. The British courts agreed that the activity was reprehensible, but said, "There's nothing we can do about it because the people who are tapping your phone are not breaking any specific law. Therefore, as you have no positive right not to have your telephone tapped, there is nothing we can do about it." Mr. Malone took his case to Strasbourg and won. We now have legislation governing telephone tapping in this country, but Mr. Malone should have been able to have his case heard in our courts.
  It seems to me that those who oppose the Bill can adopt only two logical positions: first, they can support the repeal of the convention or ask that the United Kingdom derogate from it so that the people of this country do not have convention rights; secondly, they can support incorporation and argue about the details of the repeal legislation. I pay tribute to those Opposition Members who have spoken about their concerns regarding the repeal mechanism. I do not agree with them, but I respect their position.
  The Bill should be welcome on both sides of the House. Those who approve of all things European should welcome it because it incorporates a European convention
  834
  into English law. Those who see the channel as the only thing separating us from the unholy hordes of non-cricket-playing foreigners and their dreaded institutions should welcome it also. The idea that British judges shall decide the human rights of British people according to a convention signed by the British Government should appeal to those of the latter persuasion. However, it may be asking too much of the Conservative party to think along those lines—or even with one mind on this subject.
  I raised an important question by way of intervention during the speech of the shadow Home Secretary, to which he did not respond. Why will the Opposition not trust the British judges? It goes further than the question of incorporation. Why do the Opposition not trust the British judges to interpret convention rights and the balance between rights and responsibilities when those judges are part of our society, try cases involving our society and are likely to be far better acquainted with the balance in our parliamentary democracy than judges in Strasbourg who come from a wide range of European states? I fear that there is no answer to that question. That is why I believe that there are only two logical positions to adopt: either one opposes the convention completely or one approves of its incorporation in this country.
  In the limited time available to me, I want to address the question of what the convention is likely to do to assist people in this country in exercising their rights. I share the view that our institutions—such as local government, national Government, the police and some of our privatised utilities that discharge public functions—do not act habitually or intentionally in breach of conventions. There is no conspiracy to do down certain sections of the population. However, that does not mean that the system does not break down; it does not mean that people do not slip through the cracks or are not failed by policies that were introduced for one purpose but which have another devastating effect. If our institutions act in breach of people's convention rights, people will now be able to seek a remedy in our courts. I anticipate that there will be relatively few court cases asserting convention rights, but I hope that the existence of those rights will change behaviour.
  The best analogy is perhaps with racist and sexist behaviour. In both cases, it is likely that the law led majority public opinion. Although many people believed that legislation was necessary in that area, the laws were not universally welcomed initially. However, the existence of those laws has changed behaviour across a wide spectrum. Much greater changes will be needed if we are to move towards a rights-based society. Changing the law so that rights may be enforced in our courts is an essential step towards changing behaviour. The positive human rights in the convention will speedily and effectively remedy the dead hand of anonymous bureaucracy that breaches our convention rights.
  The White Paper that preceded the Bill suggested that human rights should be woven subtly and powerfully into our law. I hope that the Bill will go beyond that: I hope that those rights will be woven subtly and powerfully into the operations of every element of government and public institutions so that they do not breach the convention and thus do not find themselves before the courts. In that way, they will respect individuals' fundamental human rights.

  835
  That brings me to my last point. The success of the campaign to outlaw race and sex discrimination is partially due to the work of Government agencies that are charged with enforcing the laws and changing public attitudes. They do that through sponsoring cases, through workplace training and by educating trade union and employee leaders about their rights. That work is as valuable as the cases that have defined the law. If we are to move to a rights-based society, I believe that a human rights commission can build on the work undertaken by the Equal Opportunities Commission and others. I accept that there are difficulties and that we cannot achieve our goals overnight. However, as we move towards a rights-based society, I hope that the demands for a human rights commission, promoted by the parliamentary Committee envisaged in the White Paper, will become plain.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. He said that those hon. Members who argued that we should not have a fast-track remedial system had a point, although he disagreed with it. Now that he, like some of his hon. Friends, is developing the idea in support of a human rights commission—he is right to envisage a considerable extension of human rights and the development of law in this area; and no doubt there will be incompatibility from time to time—will he explain to the House in a few sentences why it is right that Parliament should have only one and a half hours in this and another place in which to deal with such a matter should it arise?
  Mr. Lock: An automatic repeal would be the primary mechanism assumed by the courts to repeal one Act by a subsequent Act. If the courts determined that there was incompatibility, the later Act would apply and the former would be deemed to be repealed. In this case, the later Act would be the Human Rights Act if the Bill comes into force. Therefore, in the usual way, there would be no need for a repeal mechanism.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman should accept that any likely breach—which I hope will be rare—of the convention will be narrow and precise rather than an attempt to overrule primary legislation in its entirety. Accordingly, a one and a half hour debate on a narrow point may well be appropriate.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that if there is incompatibility between an Act of Parliament and the convention, there is a strong argument for putting that right as quickly as possible if we respect human rights, and that there is therefore an argument for a fast-track approach?
  Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as that was the third point that I was going to make. We must balance the need for a proper debate on any change to primary legislation with the mechanism for repeal. I have the privilege of sitting on the Select Committee on Deregulation, where primary legislation can be—indeed, is—amended using the affirmative resolution procedure. That provides for a one and a half hour debate, which now appears to be so inadequate for the purpose of amending primary legislation. At worst, it is a model that we have
  836
  picked up from our predecessors. In balancing the need for speed, which is far more pertinent in the case of human rights than it is for deregulation, the Bill gets the balance about right.
  That was all said in the context of a request to the Government to keep the human rights commission under review.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is proving to be an interesting debate, with thoughtful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We can therefore rest assured that it will not feature in tomorrow's newspapers, that it will not be on "Yesterday in Parliament", and that it will be buried without trace because, as we know, our media—broadsheets included—are interested only in the sexy bits, not the somewhat arcane matters that we are discussing tonight.
  The Bill is one of a series of measures that the Government are introducing that will have a seismic impact on the people of this country. It should not be buried in a hole in the corner; it is something of which the British public should be well aware. It is part of the bulldozing of the constitutional landscape of the United Kingdom. It is on a par with the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the proposals to abolish the hereditary right of peers in another place who are there through an accident of birth, and substitute them with peers who are there by accident of friendship with the Prime Minister. We are faced with a torrent of legislation on important constitutional matters. The Bill is profoundly important. I am delighted that some of my hon. Friends who are in favour of the principle of the Bill will nevertheless join me in the Lobby tonight to oppose it.
  The Bill has generated real public interest only because the media feel threatened by it. They are concerned about their right to intrude into other people's private lives—so it is offensive to them. Were it not for that fact, I doubt whether they would pay such attention to it.
  I do not see a great demand for the Bill. Constituents do not come to my surgery in Aldershot, saying, "Mr. Howarth, we must have a human rights Bill." The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who has been present throughout the debate, made an important point when he said that this is a symbolic measure and that it sends a signal to our counterparts in Europe. That is no basis on which to legislate to overturn an established principle of the House.
  I am concerned about the Bill. I do not believe that there is a need for it. The Labour party is only newly converted to the cause. As recently as 1988, Roy—now Lord—Hattersley was against it. Only when John Smith became leader of the Labour party was any interest shown in it. As Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe—a splendid patriot and a former Chief Whip, but nevertheless a great man—said, this measure emanates from the chattering classes, and Charter 88 in particular. He said that it is not coming from the roots up; it is coming from a particular and narrow corner of the electorate.
  I have major reservations about the Bill, as it panders to the belief that there is a human rights deficit in the United Kingdom. I believe that to be profoundly untrue. We need look no further than the origins of the human rights convention to get some understanding of why we are debating the Bill. Oppression and the systematic

  837
  destruction of human rights played an important part in bringing about the horrific tragedy of the second world war; the convention was drawn up in the aftermath of the war. Those who were in positions of political influence thereafter wanted to do whatever they could to prevent it from happening again, and this was one way in which they could lay down clear tenets of human rights and liberties of the subject, which this place had taken for granted for decades, if not centuries.
  This place breathes the concept of the rule of law and freedom under the rule of law. We do not need any lectures from anybody overseas to promote the cause of human rights. We are one of those nations—if not the nation—that have led the way in promoting human rights. Nobody did more than Baroness Thatcher to bring human rights to eastern European countries—whose regimes were often looked on favourably by the Labour party over a number of decades—and to ensure that they enjoy freedom under the rule of law.
  I understand the Government's wishing to promote their buzz phrase about bringing rights home. I believe that the present system works. Some of my friends were concerned about the closed shop, particularly as it applied to railwaymen. They sought to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, but I felt that the matter should be decided in this country. If the people of Britain wanted the closed shop, they should have voted for a party that supported that concept. We should not be required to go abroad to enforce rights. This is where it should happen.
  I have been in favour of a Bill of Rights. The late Sir Ian Mactaggart—the father of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—was a great friend of mine. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady. He was a great man and he and I promoted a Bill of Rights in the other place, but the father of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) threw it out, having said that he was in favour of it. I have changed my view. I do not believe that a Bill of Rights is necessary. I believe that the guarantor of the people's liberties in this country is the House, which brings me to another point.
  The Bill will diminish respect for Parliament. It should be for Parliament to decide some of the important issues, and some of the conflicting issues. On the right of freedom of expression, or the right of an individual to enjoy a private life, it is for this place to draw the distinguishing line. It should not be handed over to unelected judges, however good they may be. I fear that those who are concerned to change the law, whether it be on euthanasia, abortion or any other issue, will cease to come to the House to seek redress but will go first and foremost to the courts. I know that it is expensive to go to the European Court of Human Rights, but that provides some hurdle. The alternative is that the role of the House will be diminished as people seek more and more to have laws interpreted by the courts instead of being spelt out by the House.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I shall not deal with the hon. Gentleman's reference to my father, but I wish to ask him whether he really believes that it is proper to have a barrier to access to rights that means that rich people have access while poor people do not. In effect, that is what he has said.
  838
  Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the House is able in individual cases to draw a line, where rights are in conflict, between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of information and public knowledge? How can the House undertake that job?
  Mr. Howarth: To answer the hon. Lady's first question, we know that going to law is always expensive. My hon. and learned Friends are expensive people. However, there are those who will appear as advocates on behalf of those who cannot afford expensive lawyers. The case of the railwaymen, to which I have referred, is one example. The case was taken up by the Freedom Association. It espoused the railwaymen's cause and helped those concerned to have their case heard before the European Court of Human Rights.
  As time is pressing—I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak—I shall make my third and final point in explaining why I believe the Bill is profoundly unacceptable. I believe that it risks politicising the judges. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is not in his place at the moment, said a few minutes ago that he did not believe that our judges would be drawn into what he described as the political morass.
  I am sure that our judges are splendid people, but, at the same time, it seems to me that there is a great danger that they will be drawn into the political morass. If the House deserts the field of battle and hands matters to the lawyers, the lawyers will definitely take up the cudgels. If that happens, they will find themselves perforce involved in deciding matters of public political controversy.
  The Bill does serious harm to the concept of the separation of powers whereby Parliament enacts the law and the courts then interpret the law as passed by Parliament. That is the job of the courts, and to have lawyers trespassing upon the rights of the House will do grave damage. They will find it difficult to reconcile conflicting priorities without incurring the wrath of one side or the other. They will certainly be trespassing on the rights of the House.
  I pray in aid a Member of the other place who has not been referred to so far—my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who said:
  "I am a firm admirer of our judiciary and the limitations that our constitutional practice has placed upon its work. Those limitations have preserved the judiciary from any perceived taint of partiality, especially in controversial fields of political policy. That is important and we want to risk it only after the greatest care and consideration."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c.1261.]
  I believe that the Bill fails to provide that necessary care and consideration.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on introducing the Bill. I pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor and to Lord Williams of Mostyn, who shepherded the Bill through the other place. I wish also to join the tributes paid by my right hon. Friend to the late leader of the Labour party, John Smith, and to the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
  There are persuasive arguments for incorporating the European convention into our law. First, the convention has an important symbolic significance. In my view,

  839
  it demonstrates clearly that this country is committed to human rights. That does not mean that we have not taken human rights seriously in the past—we obviously have: since 1951, we have adhered to the European convention at treaty level—but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that patriation of the convention is one way of restoring confidence in our Government.
  It must seem somewhat paradoxical to ordinary people, if they know about it, that basic constitutional rights have until now been negative rights. In other words, they are enjoyed as long as Parliament does not legislate to the contrary. Incorporation of the convention will ensure that basic constitutional rights will become positive rights. I think that that is a great benefit.
  The second persuasive argument is that it is somewhat undesirable—several hon. Members have made the point—that if individuals want to pursue rights under the convention they must go to Strasbourg. They have to incur costs and are subject to the delays associated with pursuing rights before the Commission and ultimately the European Court.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) advanced a valid argument when he said that rights in practice are vital, and added that it is all very well to have rights on paper, but, if they are not implemented and capable of being implemented in practice, they are not worth very much. That is the effect of the current arrangements. People must be greatly disillusioned when they are told that they must exhaust their remedies in this country right up to the House of Lords, and then go further to Strasbourg. That is the second argument in favour of incorporation.
  The third argument is that the United Kingdom courts, once the convention is incorporated, will be able to contribute to jurisprudence on human rights. Historically, of course, they have already done that through the development of the common law. In recent times, they have referred to the convention in decision making. Under the Bill, however, they will be able to proceed directly. They will be able to take into account the decisions of the European Court—that is provided for in the Bill; it is inconceivable that that would not be open to them.
  The Bill correctly provides that our courts will not be bound by European Court jurisprudence. In my view, some of the decisions of the European Court are based on faulty reasoning. In some instances, I think that it is plain wrong. The Saunders decision falls into that category. That decision did not appreciate the problems of policing corporate misbehaviour. Nor did it appreciate properly the history of insolvency and company law in this country. If our courts had handled that case under the convention, I think that a different decision would have been reached. If our courts can consider these matters, we can contribute to the development of doctrine. In an area in which legislative provisions are so open-textured, that is all important.
  There are other, ancillary, advantages to incorporation, such as the benevolent effect that it will have on our attitude to statutory interpretation. The Bill provides that the convention must be interpreted in a purposive way. I hope that that approach will insinuate itself more widely into the interpretation of legislation.
  840
  That leads me conveniently to several matters of controversy about incorporation of the convention. I shall touch on them briefly, given the limited time that is available to me.
  The first issue is the role of the judges. As I have said, they will have an important role because they must decide on the metes and bounds of very vague provisions. Moreover, some of the convention rights can, in particular contexts, be in conflict with one another. The judges will have to reconcile those possible conflicts. That goes to the nub of the debate about where the line will be drawn in relation to the press—between article 8 on privacy and article 10 on freedom of speech.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that judges should decide? Such matters should be decided in the House. I am in favour of a privacy law, but I am not in favour of its being decided by judges. If the House wants a privacy law, let us have one, but we should not leave it to the judges because we cannot make up our minds.
  Mr. Cranston: Judges adjudicate on disputes. These matters are decided in Strasbourg, but I believe that it is more appropriate for such decisions to be made in this country.
  The Bill has got the balance right, because it takes our system of parliamentary sovereignty into account. There has been quite a discussion in constitutional circles about whether we should adopt the New Zealand or the Canadian model for a Bill of Rights and whether we should enable the courts to strike down legislation, at least legislation made after incorporation, on the ground of incompatibility. In my view, if the Canadian approach had been adopted there would have been a risk of politicisation of the judiciary, or at least the appearance of politicisation. The Bill proffers the neat solution of a declaration of incompatibility. The courts cannot directly affect the validity or continuing operation of primary legislation, but they can make a declaration that would trigger the remedial order provisions.
  Some Conservative Members have expressed reservations about the remedial order procedure. I would be more convinced by their arguments if the Conservative Government had not introduced the deregulation legislation under which orders can amend primary legislation. Handled sensitively, this method could speedily overcome a problem caused when a court has declared that legislation is incompatible with convention rights.
  The second area of controversy concerns standing. The Bill states who can challenge an act of a public authority that is said to be contrary to convention rights. Bodies such as Justice and Liberty would prefer a wider test than that provided in clause 7, which confines standing to victims of an act that is contrary to the convention. However, the Bill again strikes the right balance.
  At this stage of our constitutional development, the open-door approach to challenges to governmental acts would be premature. Frankly, as those associated with constitutional litigation in other countries and with judicial review in this country know, it is fairly easy in practice to find a victim if someone wants to challenge a particular governmental act. At an early stage of the

  841
  debate, I expressed a preference for a judicial review system, under which victims can rely on convention rights only by special application and not by direct involvement in litigation.
  The third area of controversy concerns the ambit of convention rights once incorporated. They are, in the main, vertical rights that can be raised only against public authorities, which are widely defined in the Bill. On the particular controversy about the press, the fear of the press in this area is ill-founded. The European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have lived with the potential conflict for many years. In case law, they have made it clear that freedom of expression for the press is a paramount factor.
  A country's constitution is a living thing. The incorporation of the convention is one step in this country's constitutional development. I can see a day when we will have a human rights commission, and even a Bill of Rights in a different form. It goes without saying that the Bill, when enacted, will not be the be-all and end-all of human rights. Human rights must be put in a wider context. The Government's new deal to give dignity to young people through employment is just as important as this measure.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: Serious objections to the Bill should cause the House to refuse to give it a Second Reading. The first objection relates to the content of the articles of the European convention on human rights, some of which are profoundly flawed and unsatisfactory. On the basis of such an assessment, there is no case for their incorporation into British law.
  Article 2 refers to the right to life, yet it does not prohibit the application of the death penalty. Article 4 prohibits forced labour, yet it accepts
  "any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations."
  I leave the House to judge precisely how that article should be interpreted.
  Article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty, yet it allows the arrest of vagrants. In earlier, perhaps halcyon times, vagrants were known as "tramps". Many of them are stout fellows who prefer to take their chances on the open road. It is not clear to me why they should be singled out by the Bill for particular, differential and unfavourable treatment.
  Article 9 provides that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, but not if constraints are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public order, health and morals. There is a further ambiguity: if thought, conscience and religion are not to do with morals, it is difficult to imagine what they are about. If morals do not have an impact on conscience and religion, how can we know where we stand?
  Although the convention is full of good intentions, it is replete with contradictions and ambiguity. I am not content to proceed on that basis.
  Article 11 provides for freedom of association and assembly, from which one could reasonably deduce that the right of individuals to assemble, as they have for generations, to go hunting would be underwritten and guaranteed by the incorporation of the European convention, but I doubt whether Labour Members would agree to that.
  842
  There is a serious problem at the heart of the content of the articles of the convention. They have one feature in common: they concern matters that are pre-eminently for democratic debate and not for judicial resolution. None of them is exclusively, or even largely, judicial or legal in character: they all have a substantial political component. That is why the elected House of Commons should adjudicate on the merits of the principles and on the articles of the convention. It is wholly inappropriate for us to follow the continental practice, and to incorporate those high-falutin' but unsatisfactory declarations into United Kingdom law.
  Mr. Beith: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman in principle, but if his argument has any substance, why have Conservative Governments in the past 50 years allowed these rights to remain accessible to the people of this country and subject to judicial decision in Strasbourg?
  Mr. Bercow: If the right hon. Gentleman had been present for more of the debate, he would have observed that several of my right hon. and hon. Friends drew attention to circumstances in which this country—under Conservative Governments as well as others—thought it right to sign up to the convention: circumstances radically different from those that obtain today. No serious threat to rights is currently entailed, and I see no justification for incorporation.
  The second objection, which has been made powerfully by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that, whatever the Bill's purpose, its effect will be to confer a dramatic extension of power upon the courts. A number of Labour Members denied that, but they did not refer to the substance. I intend to do so.
  There are two respects in which there is a significant increase in power for the courts. First, there is the right of the British judiciary—a right that it has never enjoyed before—to strike down secondary legislation when the parent Act does not prevent compatibility with the European convention. The Labour party pooh-poohs that as being of minimal significance, but I believe that it is a dramatic constitutional change which Labour is trying to push through on the nod in a beguiling fashion, reassuring us that nothing of substance is at stake and that there is no danger. That is not true: it is a substantial change.
  Secondly, there is the entitlement of the higher courts, in respect of primary legislation, to make a declaration of incompatibility. We have heard a good deal about that from those on all sides of the debate. I find it worrying. I believe that the courts—contributing to the evolution of jurisprudence, as the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) rightly emphasised—will often take it on themselves to fashion law, seeing that as a contribution to the debate. I see nothing in the Bill that will prevent the courts from going beyond the existing terms of the convention as part of the process of trying to reform and, in their view, improve it.
  Because of the courts' understandable attachment to precedent, once a precedent is established—once the courts think that something is incompatible with the convention—the prospect of their revising that judgment is so small as to be insignificant. That is a serious problem. We are creating a collision course between the courts and the House of Commons. Creative tension is healthy, but to embody and almost to sanctify

  843
  a potential war of attrition between two central components of the British state is unwise. It does violence to the principle of the separation of powers. Such a move may be well intended, but it is pregnant with peril for the future.
  The third objection is to the extension of the power of Ministers. The Home Secretary is a sophisticated operator. He argued, with all the passion and force at his command, that the Government were protecting parliamentary sovereignty. He sought to defend the really rather unsatisfactory and indirect way in which the Government are promoting their proposal by saying, "We will not go for direct incorporation, because that would enable the courts to strike down primary legislation and would violate parliamentary sovereignty, to the defence of which we—the Labour Government—are committed." I regard that as thoroughly unsatisfactory and unconvincing.
  The truth is that the fast-track power that the Government will confer on themselves if the Bill becomes law is not—as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will by now have discerned—about the protection of parliamentary sovereignty; it is about the promotion of the convenience of the Executive. That is a fundamentally different point. A much more damaging procedure is to be set in train, and I am extremely worried by the threat that is being proposed. I am not alone: the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has expressed concern, saying—not so very long ago—that, without severe limitations, a power of such potential width would be unacceptable. I entirely concur with that verdict; there are real problems in what the Government propose.
  I believe that the way in which we have conducted our affairs to date is entirely satisfactory, and I see no cause for change. The Government have made a poor argument in support of such change. The Home Secretary has not exactly been helped; indeed, he has been weakened at every turn by the interventions of his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I find the Lord Chancellor's attempts to tell us that there is no threat to the freedom of the press thoroughly unconvincing. He has—foolishly and cack-handedly—given the game away a number of times, talking about the need for prior restraint, saying that stories should not be published and insisting that the press will have to have its wings clipped in the future. It is no use the Lord Chancellor, under threat of permanent removal from the Government by No. 10 Downing street, claiming that that is not his agenda. In fact, he displays wisdom in inverse proportion to the frequency of his public utterances, and his public utterances have damaged the cause of the Bill.
  This is a poor Bill, and the thesis advanced in its support is still worse. We do not need it; we would be better off without it. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose a Second Reading for such an unnecessary and unwelcome measure.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I welcome the Bill, and congratulate the Government on introducing it so early in this Parliament.
  It is an indication of how seriously the Government are pursuing their programme of constitutional reform and modernisation that time has been found to introduce this
  844
  important Bill. It needs to be seen in the context of the Government's intention to modernise the state and to devolve power. In my view, it is a long overdue reform. It has been variously described this evening as revolutionary and seismic, but perhaps it appears more dramatic than it is. After all, it only addresses the anomaly whereby, although the United Kingdom is internationally bound by the convention, the convention is not enforceable in this country. In that sense, the Bill repatriates the convention: it brings it back to the United Kingdom. The Bill seems more revolutionary than it is because, for 18 years, the Conservatives ruled in such an arrogant manner, producing a system of government that abused power.
  The United Kingdom was among the first countries to ratify the convention in 1951, but—probably because of the number of successive Conservative Governments—it is among the last to incorporate it in domestic law.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, briefly.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman remind himself that, until 1993, it was Labour party policy not to incorporate the convention?
  Mr. Thomas: Opinion has developed since the second world war. After the war, the conventional wisdom was that it was not necessary for countries such as the United Kingdom to incorporate measures such as this. Since then, however, a succession of Governments have, either rashly or blindly, eroded individual rights in this country. That is why this reform is so long overdue.
  Let me specify four points that need to be addressed. They are the reasons why it is so important to deal with the anomaly to which I have referred. First, the convention needs to be brought closer to people. It is not a matter for the chattering classes. Articles enshrined in the convention on punishment without law, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty and security concern grass-roots issues; they affect ordinary people. Access to such rights has not been easy. It has involved an arduous, expensive and long-winded process whereby litigants have had to exhaust all possible domestic avenues of redress before making the journey to Strasbourg. The Bill significantly improves the status quo in resolving such a difficulty—and not before time.
  Secondly, by incorporating convention rights into UK law, the general level of public confidence in our legal system will be enhanced. No longer will it be necessary for lawyers to say, "Well, you have gone through all the possible procedures in the UK, but I am afraid that we cannot take the case any further. You have to go abroad to Strasbourg to ventilate your case and get a hearing." That problem will be resolved, and, at a far earlier stage, it will be possible for courts to intervene and determine issues concerning the applicability of the convention to prevent inconvenience and hardship.
  Thirdly—this is a most important point which Conservative Members have neglected—the incorporation of the convention and its interpretation by British judges will import an important element of British jurisprudence. In a very real sense, that is a devolution of power from

  845
  Strasbourg to British courts. One can expect that British judges, versed in the sensitive relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary, will produce decisions that are inherently more sustainable and plausible.
  Fourthly—I make specific reference to clause 19—the Bill will improve the culture and awareness of human rights in the United Kingdom. It is particularly welcome that the Bill stipulates that before any Bill is introduced, it will be necessary for the Minister in charge of that Bill to make a statement of its impact on human rights. That is a very welcome change, especially after an unfortunate period during which the state has been favoured too much over the individual. Is it not a strong indication of the Government's altruism that, armed with an overwhelming parliamentary majority, they none the less consider it necessary to lay down for the long term a system of rights to protect individuals from misuse of power by the state? The provision is a litmus test of the conviction behind the Bill.
  I welcome the Bill; it is long overdue. It is an essential part of the Government's reform and modernisation of our constitution for the 21st century.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: We all know where the Government are coming from. Everybody is in favour of human rights as they are traditionally understood.
  Mr. Swayne: Speak for yourself.
  Mr. Leigh: There is no debate about that—although my hon. Friend says that I should speak for myself. I am not sure whether he meant to say that.
  We know that the convention grew from conditions in the second world war. We have been reminded of that again and again. But the scope of human rights has been greatly extended since the convention was first drawn up in 1950, the year in which I was born. In the famous case of Tyrer v. United Kingdom in 1978, the convention was held to be
  "a living instrument"
  —a phrase which Labour Members have bandied across the Floor—
  "which…must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions."
  When we originally signed up to the convention, we were thinking in terms of torture and slavery. I am not sure whether we were thinking in terms of caning in schools. The scope of human rights has been extended continuously, and therein lies the danger.
  Having said that, the Strasbourg Court—many of my hon. Friends would not agree—has been remarkably careful to restrict itself in moral and social areas. As I said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), under the margin of appreciation, the Court has applied a kind of principle of subsidiarity. It has left controversial decisions concerning social and moral issues largely to national judges. I do not have the confidence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my hon. Friend the Member for
  846
  Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in our judges not wanting to extend the areas on which they adjudicate. British judges will have to adjudicate on very sensitive areas.
  Of course, judges do their best to interpret the law, but they have prejudices—as we read last week. Not all judges are perfect. Some are tardy; some, according to barristers who appear in front of them, are horrible; some do not even know who Gazza is; some are out of touch. Judges do not necessarily know more than Members of Parliament about the real world.
  We have heard a great deal about the fast-track procedure and the danger of secondary legislation overtaking primary legislation. I concede the point to Labour Members that those who live by the sword of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill may have to die by it. Perhaps we can now see that it was dangerous to proceed down such a route. Just because a mistake is made once is not a good reason for compounding the error by repeating it. For the sake of brevity—I have been asked to speak for less than 10 minutes—I adopt the arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the dangers of the 90-minute procedure. It is not a small point; it is very important.
  Rights-based law does not guarantee freedom. I shall illustrate that by describing how secular courts in other countries have handled difficult social issues. Under the constitutional "right to free speech" in Canada and the United States, pornographers have made great headway in overturning legislation passed by democratic means. Only recently, a law restricting pornography on the internet, which was duly passed by an elected Congress and the President, was overturned by the Supreme Court.
  We have heard much about how we should have an unwritten constitution based on rights, but the USA's rights-based constitution has profoundly influenced education. In the 1960s, the US Supreme Court struck down school prayer and reduced religious education in schools. Perversely, the Supreme Court used the separation of church and state provisions of the constitution—which were intended to protect religious freedom—so that, in the US, freedom of religion has become freedom from religion.
  In 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed to permit individual states—if they wanted to, and by democratic means—to allow school prayer in their states. It was passed virtually unanimously by Congress, and only three senators opposed it. However, within four years of its becoming law, it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. I mention that example to warn well-meaning hon. Members about creating a rights-based constitution, which can have perverse anti-democratic effects.
  That brings me directly to an important issue in this case, which was raised by religious leaders and a number of Law Lords in the other place. Article 9 of the convention on human rights—and Bills of Rights around the world—contains provisions to protect religious liberties. The question is how these liberties will fare in the secular courts. The experience from Holland, Canada and the United States is not encouraging, as I shall explain.
  Under clause 6 of the Bill, all public authorities are required to comply with the convention. Public authorities are defined as those bodies which perform public functions. What could be clearer? However, as my right

  847
  hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said so often during the last Parliament, our civil servants have a tendency to gold-plate European legislation so that a simple four-page directive from Brussels can become a 90-page document from Whitehall. I make no criticism of our European partners for that.
  The Bill is not convention-lite—a cut-down version of the convention. It is convention-plus, with the added requirement that all sorts of new bodies, such as the Churches and the Press Complaints Commission, will be required to comply with the convention. That is typical of the way in which we conduct our affairs in the UK, and that is why such Bills can have different effects from those envisaged by those who draft them. The White Paper says nothing about Churches being required to conform to the convention, but, as the Lord Chancellor has made clear, Churches and the other faiths will have to comply with the convention when they carry out public functions.
  As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), that means that Rupert Murdoch's media empire—which, arguably, has far more power than any religious organisation—will not be covered by the convention, but a lowly, impoverished local parish church that is simply trying to carry out its religious functions in the way in which it thinks best will be covered. That is paradoxical, and I cannot believe that that was intended by the framers of the Bill. The Government have given various promises, but I beg them to take these points seriously.
  The Prime Minister and I share the privilege of sending our children to a Church school; people send their children to such schools because they like the ethos. If a teacher is dismissed because his or her views or actions offend the religious ethos of the school, he or she—we can be sure—will takse that Church school to court. The whole ethos of Church education in this country could be overturned or, at least, be under attack.
  That may sound far-fetched, and the Government have said that it will not happen; but I shall refer to one case. An institute of theology in Holland, run by the Dutch Salvation Army, is being sued by an atheist who was refused a position on the teaching staff. That is absurd, but it is going on in Holland.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Everything goes on in Holland.
  Mr. Leigh: Perhaps people in this country do not want everything that goes on in Holland to go on here. That is why we are right to raise these fears. If the Government seek to brush aside the views of Law Lords and religious leaders in another place, they will be doing themselves a disservice.
  Our record in this country is second to none in protecting religious freedoms. Would it not be ironic if, a century after we passed emancipation legislation to buttress religious freedom, our desire to promote human rights in the Bill should, perversely, attack religious freedoms? I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government, and I hope that they will give more than assurances. I hope they will give a commitment to accept the amendments passed in another place.
  9.13 pm
  Mrs. Theresa MayI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for keeping his remarks shorter than he would perhaps have liked, to allow me to contribute, albeit briefly, to the debate.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the desirability of the convention in itself, but our debate is not about that but about the Government's decision to incorporate it into United Kingdom law and, more particularly, the means whereby they want to implement that decision.
  In the debate that has developed over recent months, I have been worried by the Government's reluctance to accept, behind the soundbite of human rights, the full implications of their proposals on incorporation. Those proposals are writ large in the Bill, which has already been discussed in some detail in the other place.
  The Government's reluctance has manifested itself in various aspects of the Bill. We saw it in the debate on whether the Bill would lead to a back-door privacy law. From the interchanges between the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, it seemed that there was disagreement and that either the Government had not thought the matter through properly or they did not want to admit the Bill's full implications. The Home Secretary said this afternoon that the Government, having accepted that there may be more to the issue than they at first acknowledged, intend to consider it and to hold consultations, and may table amendments accordingly.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) was very brave: it was to his credit that he pointed out to the Government that the Bill had considerable resource implications. He referred to the implementation of rights and the effect on expectations of, for example, the right to proper housing. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has paid any attention to such resource implications.
  The Government have been reluctant to accept the Bill's implications for the sovereignty of the House. Both Government and Opposition Members have spoken about that. It is disappointing that Labour Members do not seem to be able to understand and accept the implications for the responsibility of the House of the incorporation of the convention into United Kingdom law, and the particular way in which the Government have chosen to effect it.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Mrs. May: I am sorry, but I have very limited time.
  The implications have been rejected by Labour Members, but it is essential for the future of the House that they be considered. It is perhaps not surprising that Labour Members do not acknowledge the way in which incorporation will change the essential balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary, whereby Parliament makes the laws and the judges apply them.
  That is not surprising, because this is yet another policy in a long line of Government policies that will reduce the sovereignty of Parliament and diminish the rights and responsibilities of Members of Parliament, as democratically elected representatives, to make decisions and enact laws that respect the freedoms and rights of our individual citizens. The Government constantly downgrade the role of Parliament in many different ways.

  849
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) first mentioned the Bill's implications for the role of the Churches, and the subject came up in some other speeches, but in perhaps rather fewer than I expected. A number of Labour Members have claimed that articles 8 and 2 of the first protocol should give comfort to those who are concerned about religious freedoms. As my right hon. Friend said, those articles protect individual freedoms, not the Churches' freedoms. Some amendments were made to the Bill in the House of Lords, but, like other hon. Members, I want Churches specifically to be excluded from the definition of public authorities.
  The Bill fails to specify significant freedoms that the Churches should retain, especially in educational matters. For example, it should specify the Churches' freedom to appoint head teachers to Church schools and to operate admissions policies according to their religious principles. A child's right to an education should not mean that Churches cannot choose a child who attends the local church rather than one who does not.
  My time is running out and I know that the Front Benchers want to respond to the debate. I am sorry that I have been restricted in my comments, but I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise those points, which, I trust, the Government will address. In particular, I hope that they will deal with the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, for which they seem to have been unwilling to accept that the Bill has implications.
  9.20 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: This has been an interesting debate—indeed, as has been said, it will be interesting to see how widely it is reported. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made thoughtful speeches, demonstrating what anyone who has followed the history of the convention over its 45 years of operation knows—that there have always been widely differing views about the matter within and across parties.
  The first point that I must make in opposing the Bill is to affirm the official Opposition's strong belief in human rights. It is the first point that we make in our reasoned amendment, and there will be no disagreement about it among hon. Members.
  Having said that, I believe that it is essential that there is a proper balance, which is where the Bill is deeply flawed. If the European convention on human rights is ever to be satisfactorily incorporated into the United Kingdom's domestic law, the key point—which, again, we make clear in our reasoned amendment—is that there must be a proper balance between the roles of our domestic courts, the Court at Strasbourg and the United Kingdom Parliament. For that reason alone, if for no other, we would deny the Bill a Second Reading. I make it perfectly clear that the Conservative party is not convinced that the case for incorporation has been made in any event; it is certainly not made by the Bill.
  Views have differed over the years on the wisdom of incorporation. I point out again that, until 1993, the Labour party—including a number of right hon. and hon. Members whom I see present—vigorously opposed incorporation; it has been on a journey to Damascus, or so it would have us believe. None the less, those who have studied this matter will realise that the convention does not fit easily into the United Kingdom's constitution
  850
  or our system of common law. That is in stark distinction to the way in which it can fit into the so-called monist—it is a strange word—countries, where treaty obligations automatically have binding force in domestic law. The difference is that almost all those other countries have a detailed written constitution, as does Germany for example, or in any event place a far greater emphasis on codification and black-letter law, in which the concepts of the convention are either largely reproduced or the ability of the convention to overturn them is prevented by express words.
  I have great regard for the Home Secretary, but one of the sad things about the debate is that he should have repeated the constant refrain that the United Kingdom has a bad record in relation to Strasbourg. That is not true and I am afraid that it has reflections of Henry VIII and his period—when one wants to destroy or change something, one first seeks to give it a bad name, which is what happened then with the monasteries.
  The convention largely reproduces concepts that are deeply embedded in our common and statute law. Our laws and practices have been upheld by Strasbourg far more often than they have been struck down. The United Kingdom gave the right of individual petition—people can take their own case to Strasbourg from the United Kingdom—as long ago as 1966. France gave that right only many years later. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) made clear, a balanced analysis that takes account of the size of national populations and the length of time that a member state has given a right of individual petition, shows that, far from having a bad record, the United Kingdom is among the very best. If necessary, we will ask parliamentary questions to bring that out. It is confirmed not only by past applications but by those in the pipeline. The United Kingdom has 26 current applications that are deemed admissible, which does not mean by any means that our judgments will be overturned, France has 75—I am using only sophisticated, major western European countries as a comparison—and Italy 370. So, that puts the matter into perspective.
  Our first key criticism of the Bill is that the fast-track procedure is wrong. It seriously restricts people's right to effective representation in Parliament as well as the role of Parliament itself. That is ironic in relation to the convention. I see the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his place. He regretted the fact that the preamble to the convention had not been included in the Bill. The preamble states expressly that the fundamental freedoms that it espouses are
  "best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the human rights upon which they depend".
  So, the twin pillars of the fundamental freedoms in which we all believe are human rights and an effective political democracy. The two must go hand in hand. That is why our first attack is on the fast-track procedure—such procedures are wrong in principle and unnecessary in practice.
  Frankly, I was disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who did not seem to have bothered to read our reasoned amendment. It is not all that easy to read. Tight language is required in the drafting of such

  851
  amendments, as Madam Speaker will know. However, for a lawyer like the right hon. Gentleman, it would be perfectly clear if he had taken the trouble to study it.
  The first point, which was re-emphasised by the Home Secretary, is that primary legislation has always been rare and is likely to be so in future. Is that the Home Secretary's point, or is he saying that it is going to be very frequent? We believe that it will be unnecessary in practice and that it will be rare because primary legislation has been required on only 10 occasions in the 45 years of the convention's history.
  I pause to tease the matter out a little. The hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) both made distinguished speeches—I hope that that does not embarrass them—and see a huge and developing role for the judiciary. It is possible. I think that there will be a flush of cases. I do not think that many will involve primary legislation being struck down.
  Mr. Straw: We are trying to make predictions. I think that the best guess is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords will hold only infrequently that there are incompatibilities. The speeches of many distinguished members of the senior judiciary in the other place show that the judiciary will do its best to declare Acts of Parliament consistent with the convention, as they are required to do. Although the procedure may not be used very often, which I should have thought would reassure him, I return to the practical question whether it was satisfactory that we ended up with a two-year delay in the case of Chahal. That recognised neither individual human rights nor the needs of national security.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening because he has made what I can respectfully describe as a bad point, which I will pick up. Such declarations of incompatibility are not wrong in principle because they will be rare but because it is important that Parliament should be able to play a full part in the development of the delicate balance of rights and obligations for which the convention calls.
  The Home Secretary mentioned the Chahal case. During the debate, I looked up how much time was taken by Chahal. The Home Secretary said that it took two years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) did not introduce the legislation before the general election but it took the Government only seven months to pass it. It took two hours 41 minutes of parliamentary time in the Lords and three hours 18 minutes in this House. That can hardly be regarded as excessive. More important than that—my next point will be that there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate—it involved an amendment. The Minister who is to reply should remember that, because he moved it. It would not have been satisfactory for the legislation to be introduced by unamendable order. The amendment provided a right of appeal from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to the Court of Appeal. If it had been an unamendable order, the Government would have had to take it away and start again, and the measure would have taken three hours in each House.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not involved, but the hon. Member for
  852
  Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was, and he will recall that much of the discussion took place by way of consultation between parties. It is open for the Government to put forward a draft, consult on it, consider the views advanced by the Opposition and others and bring it before the House. All that can be done under the terms of the Bill.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Having laid one order, if the Government wish to move a separate one, they must withdraw the first and start again. They cannot just amend it in Committee.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood. The consultation takes places before the order is laid.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The amendment was refused in the House of Lords and it was introduced here, and it was then agreed to by the other place.
  The unsatisfactory nature of the fast track procedure is shown by the Government's initial and current muddle on the question of privacy and press freedom. We are delighted to note that they have now changed their mind about that. In other words, the very first time that there was a whiff of grapeshot and someone pointed out that there could be conflicts between two articles—in this case articles 8 and 10—and as soon as a matter became one of public interest, as press freedom and privacy have rightly become, the Government scrambled back and suggested that they are to amend the Bill. We welcome that they will do so through primary legislation, but will not similar cases arise time and again in the future?
  Let us take another example other than that of Chahal, which was a quite simple thing to amend. Consider Mr. Malone—the telephone tapping case, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. Surely no one is arguing that a Home Secretary would suggest that the Interception of Communications Act 1986 could have been created by an order, after a debate of one and a half hours. He would not make such a suggestion.
  The scope of the Bill is unclear. It fails to define what is a public authority, which is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The second major complaint in our reasoned amendment is that the Bill provides
  "an additional, separate, and potentially incompatible, constitutional framework".
  That requires careful thought by the Government. We do not know whether they intend a new Bill of Rights in this country, but the balance between Parliament, the United Kingdom and the Strasbourg Court is wrong. Under the proposed structure, there will be no right of appeal to Strasbourg by either the Government or a public body. In other words, once a decision has reached the House of Lords or the final courts of appeal, such as a court martial, the Appeal Court, and so on, under clause 4 (5), and if the Government or a public body has lost, there will be no opportunity for any further appeal to Strasbourg. No matter how serious the matter of public interest and how far our law may have strayed from what Strasbourg may find out, the case can be taken no further. Is that really what the Government intend?
  It may seem far-fetched to suggest it, because I have a great deal of respect for the wisdom of our judiciary, but, in theory, even our abortion laws could be struck

  853
  down under the right to life provisions of article 1. That is not a fanciful notion because the same has happened in America and Canada under their constitutions. That action would be far more drastic than that which the Strasbourg Court would ever be likely to take.
  We will probe the Government's true intentions and table amendments to provide a mechanism whereby cases can proceed to Strasbourg as they would today when it is in the public interest to have them argued and decided there. Only thus can we be assured that rulings that apply to the United Kingdom will be subject to universal application within the countries of Europe. In that way, the doctrines of the margin of appreciation and subsidiarity, rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), will be given their full weight and will be properly adhered to.
  I am not suggesting that our courts would ignore our own traditions. I am on record as acknowledging that one of the benefits that should come from a properly balanced structure is the beneficial input of the wisdom of the United Kingdom judiciary. But courts have no monopoly of wisdom. The overall balance must be right for the protection of our judiciary as well as the protection of democracy. A close reading of the Bill suggests that the Government are uncertain about how much of the convention they will entrust to the judiciary.
  Why, for example, is article 13, which provides that:
  "Everyone whose rights and freedoms …are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority",
  not incorporated? Why can cases be brought only in relation to alleged breaches by the Government or so-called public authorities? How far do the Government intend or expect the judiciary, following incorporation, to use the convention to develop the common law? Is the Press Complaints Commission a public authority? At one moment, the Government said it was not, but they took advice from David Pannick QC and then said it was. Is that now their position and why they are now coming forward with amendments? What about ombudsmen? There are banking ombudsmen and insurance ombudsmen and all sorts of ombudsmen—are they public authorities? There must be balance.
  In conclusion, it is because of the deficiencies that I have outlined that we have tabled our reasoned amendment. I am sure that it is not in the Home Secretary's character to be arrogant on such matters, but we look forward to careful answers to important questions—to an assurance that the respective roles of Executive, judiciary and legislature will be fully respected and that the substance of our reasoned amendment will be accepted. Failing that—I fear it will be failing that—I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in pressing our points firmly home in the Lobby.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): This has been a good debate on a Bill of great importance. There have been many excellent contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) welcomed the Bill in his role as leader of the delegation from the United Kingdom to the Council of Europe. Many people appear to have received invitations to visit the Home Secretary
  854
  in his office—even the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will get, no doubt, a warm welcome back to the Home Office in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who has great knowledge of Northern Ireland, raised the important issue of human rights there. He asked us to consider allowing organisations that are not themselves victims to bring class actions and to anticipate issues. We considered doing that, but decided to follow the convention practice and enable victims of breaches to raise issues as they occur. On the question of a preamble or a purposive clause, we believe that the Bill as it stands is clear about what it is intended to achieve and that a preamble or purposive clause is unnecessary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), in what must have been a difficult, but courageous and moving speech, raised her personal experiences as a Member of Parliament, as the wife of a Member of Parliament and as a mother in dealing with many of the controversial issues relating to the balance that has to be struck between articles 8 and 10, which deal with the need for freedom of expression and the right to private and family life. Her point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who stressed that that balance had to be achieved.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave a good, but extraordinary, speech, which displayed a not inconsiderable degree of thought on the issues. He expressed his doubts about the convention, but appeared to conclude that, despite the problems, we were better off with incorporation than without it, although his doubts about remedial orders affected his support for the Bill. If I have time, I might deal with some of the issues relating to remedial orders; if not, perhaps we can deal with them in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) suggested that the convention was out of date and that adhering to it was the lesser of two evils. The fact is that, year on year, more British people find the convention increasingly relevant and take cases to Strasbourg—so much so that changes are having to be included in the Bill to ensure that, in future, the Strasbourg Court will sit on a more full-time basis. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to write off in such a sweeping manner the important safeguards in the Bill.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) both made impressive and well-argued speeches. My hon. Friends raised an issue that was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in her typically robust and well-informed contribution. The issue was that of the human rights commission, in which I am sure the Liberal Democrats are also interested. We have not ruled that out in future, but, during the debate on the Bill, we want to concentrate on the issue of incorporation itself. We are conscious that there are other, more detailed issues to consider—such as how a human rights commission would relate to existing bodies, such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission—but those can be dealt with on another occasion.

  855
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough raised also the issue of a parliamentary Committee. The Government propose to strengthen Parliament's role by supporting the creation of a new parliamentary Committee on human rights. It could be a Joint Committee of both Houses or a Committee of each House; that is a matter for the House to decide. If the House so decides, the Committee's function could be to scrutinise proposed legislation, to ensure that human rights are respected, to assess UK compliance with various human rights codes and to keep the Act—as it will eventually undoubtedly become—under constant review.
  The original proposal for a Committee was made to the previous Government by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Lord Alexander of Weedon, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. A Committee would give Parliament the ability to consider reports that examined the overall issue of human rights in the United Kingdom context, and would advise the Government and both Houses of Parliament on how rights under the convention were developing and how we should respond to those developments. I hope that that proposal will be welcomed by both sides of the House.
  I hope that the proposal also reassures the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who supported the Bill, and who drew attention to the many hon. Members and to those in another place who supported incorporation of the convention. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he himself expressed the idea of incorporation in December 1993. I pay tribute to him and to those who have kept alive for so many years the fight for incorporation. He said that the Bill was a measure in which the Government could take legitimate pride—I thank him for that, and we do.
  The shadow Home Secretary made some points that I accept. He said that incorporation would not of itself guarantee human rights; I agree. However, incorporation might help to direct our minds to the rights of the individual against the state. I therefore think that it will help. He said also that it had been necessary for the previous Government to amend primary legislation 10 times to comply with the convention, and that they sought to comply with Strasbourg's decisions even if they did not agree with them. I accept that, in that respect, the previous Government's record was good.
  I am concerned about the shadow Home Secretary's comments on politicising judges; I do not accept that that will happen. Lord Bingham's words have already been quoted in this debate. He said:
  "judges already from time to time find themselves deciding cases which have political, sometimes even party-political implications. The judges strive to decide those cases on a firm basis of legal principle; and that is what they will continue to do when the convention is incorporated if the Bill becomes law."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1246.]
  It appears that the shadow Home Secretary trusts Strasbourg judges—but not our own judges—to change the law. In his book "What Next in the Law?", Lord Denning said that we have to trust someone, so why not trust the judges. Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that he has no trust in our judges, and that
  856
  they cannot distinguish law from their own "socio-political theories"? He seemed to suggest that our judges would deliver "socio-political theories".
  I almost thought—with all those socio-political theories—that I was listening to an aging Marxist decrying the establishment's conspiracy against the proletariat. However, I treat the point with seriousness because it deserves that. Judges will have to apply the law. As clause 21 makes clear, they will have to take into account judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and decisions and opinions of other bodies. They will not, of course, be bound by those decisions when our primary legislation says otherwise. They must accept primary legislation if it differs from those decisions, although judges may make a declaration of incompatibility. Our own courts—the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal and the High Court—will soon develop their own jurisprudence, and the lower courts will be bound by that.
  The shadow Home Secretary mentioned having to accept decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that are based on other countries' cases and problems. Conservative Members will recall voting for the European Communities Act 1972 and for other legislation introducing European law that not only was based on case law developed across Europe, but overruled our laws. Famously, Lord Denning warned that European law would run up the rivers and estuaries of our common law. It did, and Conservatives voted for it. The convention will not overrule our primary legislation, and the Bill will preserve parliamentary sovereignty.
  The purpose of the Bill is simple: it is to bring rights home. It is to reclaim, for people in this country, the rights to which they are entitled under the convention. The purpose may be simple, but the effects will be profound. The Bill will benefit individuals, Government and the whole of society.
  First and most obviously, the Bill will improve people's access to their rights, as my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) said. At present, those who feel that their convention rights have been infringed cannot, save in very limited circumstances, obtain redress in this country. They must take their grievances to Strasbourg. That is not a road to be taken by the faint-hearted. It takes about five years for a case to be resolved. Only those with time, patience, considerable willpower and, sometimes, considerable money are likely to stay the course. It cannot be right to ration rights so that only the dogged few can hope to benefit from them.
  Enabling our courts to take account of the convention is about more than reaching quicker decisions. It will mean that the judges of a domestic court can consider all the issues relevant to the case before them. They will no longer have to put out of their mind convention arguments that might be relevant to the case, but which they are currently debarred from considering. Therefore, the Bill will change the approach that the courts adopt to convention cases.
  The present situation is wholly unsatisfactory for the courts and for individuals. It is artificial to cordon off a set of rights and make them the exclusive preserve of the Court in Strasbourg. It leads to frustration and it impedes effective justice.

  857
  The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was worried about politicisation. I consider that our judges must be able to bring their knowledge of the United Kingdom's traditions and practices to bear on the cases that come before them. They will be able to interpret the convention rights in ways sensitive to the specific circumstances that will apply in this country. The rights under the convention will become interwoven with our laws.
  The Strasbourg Court recognises that domestic courts have the primary role to play in protecting individuals' rights under the convention. The proper role of the Strasbourg Court is to act as a backstop, but, at present, the Strasbourg institutions are often placed in the front line, as the first bodies to consider issues arising under the convention. That serves no one's interest.
  Opponents of the Bill seem to exhibit a touch of schizophrenia. Human rights are, it seems, to be supported abroad, but ignored at home. On one hand, we have an exemplary approach to fulfilling our international obligations under the convention—I have praised the previous Government's method of doing so—but, on the other, we have been almost alone in denying our people domestic access to their rights.
  Half in, half out—the hokey-cokey approach will not work. It was the position of the Conservative party regarding the European Union. It had its left foot in, its right foot out—in, out, in, out and shake it all about—and that seems to be the policy that it is now adopting on the European convention. We know how ineffective the Conservatives were in their attitudes towards Brussels. Now they are wrong, too, in their attitude to the convention. We need an end to these mixed messages. Our citizens need a clear lead. The Government will give it. We are firmly committed to protecting the rights of our people, and the Bill is one demonstration of that.
  Critics of the Bill seem to have adopted two main lines of attack. First, we have heard the authentic voice of empire, almost, from below the Gangway—the view that individuals in foreign countries may need the protection of rights to defend themselves from the state, but that we in the United Kingdom have no need for such protection within our country. We may have written the convention, hon. Members argue, but we did so for the other countries.
  That view is flawed. We already accept the judgments of a European body in respect of the convention, and have amended our laws many times in response to its findings. Therefore, we already adapt our laws in the light of convention rights. Incorporation will mean, however, that United Kingdom courts can assist in shaping those rights in a manner sensitive to our country's ways. At present they cannot. Moreover, at a time when the United Kingdom has committed a total of 50 violations of the convention, it smacks of complacency to say that we have nothing to learn by giving effect to convention rights in our law. That does not substantiate the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) in his closing speech. The issue is whether we have something to learn. I suspect that he, more than anyone, would agree that we can all learn something from the decisions of the Court at Strasbourg.
  858
  The other line of attack taken by opponents of the Bill is underpinned by a sort of defeatism—the view that it is almost too difficult to bring convention rights into our legal system because of this country's unique tradition. The argument goes that providing these rights is incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Judges will be drawn into unsavoury disputes with Parliament, thereby becoming politicised. I seem to recall a time—the time of Thatcher—when Conservatives prided themselves on a can-do attitude to life—where there is a will, there is a way. Not any more, it seems. Now they think that we are too inadequate for the task and say, "Just leave us alone." They may be inadequate to the task of governing: we are not. We can do it.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can supply us with a little can-do. Perhaps tonight he will answer the question that I asked him last week and he did not answer—the question about the definition of a public authority. Does a body that spends taxpayers' money, or fulfils a statutory function, or has Government appointees on its governing body constitute a public authority for the purposes of the Bill?
  Mr. O'Brien: That will be a matter for the courts, but it would appear to be likely to be so. It is all set out clearly in the Bill—in clause 6. If Opposition Members read it, they will have plenty of chance to discuss it in Committee. Then, I hope, they will begin to understand precisely what a public authority is likely to mean.
  I apologise to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire because I have discovered, following inquiries, that he has not yet received the written answers to his questions. He should by now have received them—
  Sir Brian Mawhinney indicated dissent.
  Mr. O'Brien:—at least, he should do shortly. I am informed that they will be on the Notice Board. In any case, I apologise for the oversight.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman makes much of our anxieties about leaving these matters to the domestic judges. In that case, why is the Home Secretary not leaving them to the judges in relation to articles 8 and 10? Why do the Government propose to amend the powers and rights of the convention before they have even incorporated it?
  Mr. O'Brien: We have decided to reinforce the Bill in a way that has, I suspect, met with a great deal of approval. Already, Lord Wakeham, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, has said of today's announcement of amendments by the Home Secretary:
  "My view is that the proposals outlined today by the Home Secretary are a significant move which I anticipate will secure by means of self-regulation the convention rights both of freedom of expression and of privacy. The Government has clearly listened to our concerns."
  We have thus received praise from Lord Wakeham. Some difficult discussions have been concluded satisfactorily; both parties have shown good will.

  859
  It goes to show that when a Government are prepared to take control and talk to people, they can achieve far more than Governments who are not so prepared.
  The Bill is part of the Government's modernisation of British politics. It is about giving people new rights in their dealings with the state. It is part of a comprehensive package of constitutional reforms which will increase individual rights, decentralise power, open up government and reform Parliament. We have moved to create a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly. There is to be a Freedom of Information Act, a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons, a long-overdue reform of the House of Lords, the abolition of the law-making powers of hereditary peers and, by means of the Bill, the introduction of the European convention on human rights into UK law. That will enable our people to access their rights in our domestic courts without having to go to Europe. The Bill empowers our people and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 335.

  Division No. 171]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Amess, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Arbuthnot, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gibb, Nick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bercow, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gray, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Green, Damian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Greenway, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brady, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, John

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Horam, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith,

  Collins, Tim

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Day, Stephen

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Evans, Nigel

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Faber, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Flight, Howard

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  860

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Madel, Sir David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Syms, Robert

  Maples, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Townend, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles

  Paterson, Owen

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Wells, Bowen

  Prior, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Randall, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Willetts, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilshire, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Richard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mr. James Cran.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Allen, Graham

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Ashton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clelland, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coleman, Iain

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Colman, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Connarty, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corbett, Robin

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Borrow, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom

  Brake, Tom

  Cranston, Ross

  Breed, Colin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burden, Richard

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Burnett, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Burstow, Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Byers, Stephen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Davidson, Ian

  Caborn, Richard

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  861

  Denham, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lock, David

  Foulkes, George

  McAllion, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McFall, John

  Godman, Norman A

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Gorrie, Donald

  MacShane, Denis

  Grant, Bernie

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hancock, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  Martlew, Eric

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Maxton, John

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hill, Keith

  Milburn, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin

  Home Robertson, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moore, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Öpik, Lembit

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  862

  Pearson, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter L

  Stott, Roger

  Pollard, Kerry

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pond, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pope, Greg

  Stringer, Graham

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Todd, Mark

  (Hamilton S)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Trickett, Jon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roy Frank

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Tyler, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Watts, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Webb, Steve

  Sedgemore, Brian

  White, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wills, Michael

  Singh, Marsha

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Worthington, Tony

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 146.

  Division No. 172]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bennett, Andrew F

  863

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Borrow, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Brake, Tom

  Flint, Caroline

  Breed, Colin

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burnett, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Burstow, Paul

  Gardiner, Barry

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godman, Norman A

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Cann, Jamie

  Gorrie, Donald

  Caton, Martin

  Grant, Bernie

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Dawson, Hilton

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Dobbin, Jim

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  864

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rendel, David

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Leslie, Christopher

  (Hamilton S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lock, David

  Roy, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  McDonnell, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacShane, Denis

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meale, Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Alun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Milburn, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Miller, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moore, Michael

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morley, Elliot

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mudie, George

  (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Öpik, Lembit

  Touhig, Don

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Tyler, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Vaz, Keith

  Pond, Chris

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Webb, Steve

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  White, Brian

  865

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Amess, David

  Horam, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Baldry, Tony

  Johnson Smith,

  Bercow, John

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Key, Robert

  Blunt, Crispin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brady, Graham

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Leigh, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Butterfill, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Cash, William

  Luff, Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  (Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clappison, James

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Madel, Sir David

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Maples, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Day, Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Norman, Archie

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Prior, David

  Flight, Howard

  Randall, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gibb, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Gill, Christopher

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Steen, Anthony

  Hammond, Philip

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  866

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Walter, Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wardle, Charles

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. James Cran.

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Human Rights Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payments out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown—

  (i) in consequence of an award of damages or costs in proceedings under the Act;

  (ii) as administrative expenses resulting from the provisions of the Act;

  (iii) in connection with judicial training;

  (b) the payment out of such money or the Consolidated Fund of sums in respect of any additional judicial salary, or of contributions or benefits in respect of judicial pensions, arising in connection with the appointment of the holder of a judicial office as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights;

  (c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.— [Mr. Clelland.]

  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115(1) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)),
  That—

  (1) the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee; and

  (2) at the sitting on Thursday 26th February the Committee shall consider, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115, the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above.—[Mr. Clelland.]

  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Save Our Countryside
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The petition, from the residents of mid-Bedfordshire, is entitled "Save Our Countryside". It reads:
  The petition of the residents of Mid-Bedfordshire declares that we are concerned about the decisions to sanction plans for new development throughout the countryside.
  The countryside and the rural way of life are threatened by this Labour Government. In just 10 months, they have set about destroying the livelihood of farmers. They have attacked traditional country pursuits, they have promoted the right to roam, and they appear determined to suburbanise wide, vast swathes of green belt and green-field land. Our countryside is not a playground for those who live in the city, but the shop floor of a world-beating agricultural industry. Unless the Government reverse their myopic urban perspective, what has been nurtured over centuries will be destroyed in a matter of years.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas, instead of the countryside or Green Belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.
  The petition has my whole-hearted support.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Education Funding (Rutland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the way in which education in Rutland is funded. It may seem a rather parochial issue, and to many it may seem just another case of special pleading, but I hope to persuade the Minister that this is a straightforward case of unfairness which has arisen from the restructuring of local government—and, what is more, that it can be readily addressed if the will exists.
  When in opposition, Labour Members used constantly to talk about underfunding. I am not in the business today of complaining about underfunding in general. In order to put my case to the Minister, I do not need to ask for any overall increase in the education budget, however desirable that might be. All I am asking for is a fair share for Rutland of the budget that already exists—and, indeed, of the budget that used to exist. The problem is that, when Rutland was separated from Leicestershire, it ended up with less money for education than it used to receive before it was granted unitary status. To put it simply, "We was robbed."
  I am talking about primary education. Rutland has 17 primary schools. The dedication of teachers, supporting staff, parents, and, of course, the children themselves has put them top of the latest league tables. Little Rutland came out on top, and all those involved deserve the highest praise for their success. That does not mean that all will be rosy in future. Problems are looming, of which I have been warning Ministers for more than two years. I want to find a solution to Rutland's funding problem before schools are hit by the big problem that I see on the horizon.
  The Minister for School Standards was kind enough to see me last year, with representatives of the council. I am grateful to him for giving us a sympathetic hearing. He is a furiously busy man, and given the number of tips that we read in the press, I am keen to secure some action from him before he moves on to higher things.
  The problem of funding Rutland's education has nothing to do with county status as such. There is nothing inherently more expensive or awkward about granting county status to such a small administrative area as Rutland. I always argued—those who looked in detail at the economics of Rutland were similarly adamant—that a unitary Rutland would not prove more costly than a lower-tier Rutland working as a district in association with the larger unit of Leicestershire county council. If there were a problem, it would be caused by the funding formula failing to adjust to the specific requirements of a small unitary rural authority. That is exactly what has happened. The nub of the problem is very simple: the structure of local government has changed, but it has not been matched by a change in the structure of local government funding.
  The restoration of county status was supported by the Labour party in opposition. The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who is now the Minister for Local Government and Housing and responsible for local government finance, said on 6 February 1996, speaking on behalf of the then Opposition:
  "Community identity is important. I come from an area where we are fiercely proud of our identity, so I would not seek to undermine that elsewhere. It will be up to Rutland to demonstrate they are able

  869
  to meet the expectations of the local electorate. In the achievement of that local identity, the electorate must not be deprived and the services to which they are entitled must not be undermined or diminished."
  I agreed with her then, and I agree with her now.
  At the same time that the hon. Member for North-West Durham was saying that, I was saying that Rutland could become a model council by pioneering ways in which services are bought and provided efficiently. Rutland was determined to be an enabling council. In its first year, I can honestly say that, from its track record, it has more than lived up to expectations.
  Before 1 April 1997, everyone looking at Rutland thought that it would have to enter into about 80 joint agreements in order to function. In practice, it has managed much better on its own than anyone ever envisaged, and has relied on others only to the extent of entering into 30 joint agreements.
  When people speak of economies of scale, they tend to mean that bigger is cheaper. That is not so in Rutland. The new county has found new economies out of being smaller. When it came to the school meals service, Leicestershire wanted to charge £118,000 for continuing provision in 1997–98. Rutland now runs a similar service in-house for £56,000. Leicestershire quoted £65,000 to provide an educational psychology service. Rutland does it itself for £35,000, and offers more school visits. Rutland operates its own concessionary travel scheme, with an improved service which costs £7,000 less than before. Small has proved beautifully efficient.
  The council is working very well indeed. It has assumed all the responsibilities of the former county layer, and has shown itself to be more than capable of running services efficiently. However, its overall funding position is now anomalous. The funding regime under which it is being asked to live is ill-suited to the new structure that it faces.
  Overall, its capping limit was £23,429,000 in 1997–98, and it will be about £24,500,000 in 1998–99. This may look like a satisfactory increase in the cap, totalling about £1,020,000, but it is pretty well all taken up straight away by items of expenditure such as nursery vouchers, increased pension costs, the cost of the local plan, offsetting cuts in the community care grant, recoupment for the secondary sector—which in Rutland is all grant-maintained—and inflation.
  The real problem lies with education. The SSA for education in 1997–98 is £10,646,000. In 1998–99, it will be £11,247,000. This apparent increase of about £600,000 will not even meet the additional requirements caused by changes in Government funding requirements, and new demands on the existing budget. Rutland, rather than the Treasury—as it used to be—will now have to pay £270,000 for the reinstatement of nursery vouchers; the amount recouped from Rutland to pay for its grant-maintained secondary schools will be £135,000; and special educational needs and the contributions to the standards funds will more than take up the balance. At the end of the day, there will be no new money for Rutland's primary schools.
  According to the Audit Commission, Rutland spends about£20 per head of population less on all education provision than our nearest similar neighbours. If Rutland were to spend in line with similar authorities, a further £730,000 should be available. Looking at 1997–98,
  870
  it would mean spending £1.2 million above SSA to bring education expenditure in Rutland on to a par with residents in other areas. At the moment, Rutland spends—and can afford to spend—only £479,000 over SSA.
  The key point is this. When Rutland was deemed to be part of Leicestershire, the various anomalies in the county's funding formula were lost in the wash. Twists and turns in the system were evened out by cross-subsidy over the larger county. However, when Rutland was set apart from the rest of Leicestershire, the spending was disaggregated and apportioned between the two.
  That left Rutland with a completely cock-eyed funding formula, and an education SSA that had no bearing whatever on the historic spending patterns previously enjoyed by its schools. If one compares the actual spend in Rutland on its primary schools with the SSA for Rutland on its own, one finds that the schools have been asked to take a significant cash cut in spending. The historic spending patterns prior to unitary status were at a higher level than is actually allowed in the new unitary Rutland. In 1995–96, the actual spend was £11,490,000. In 1996–97 it was £11,819,000. In 1997–98, the actual spend is£11,125,000, against an SSA of£10,646,000. In 1998–99, the SSA will be £11,247,000. I am well aware of the point that the Minister is likely to make, which is that the SSA does not necessarily reflect the amount actually spent on education. However, in the case of Rutland, it is so far adrift, it defies logic.
  One of the problems Rutland faces is that the existing formula does not in any way reflect the extra costs incurred because of sparsity. The county may be only 100 miles north of London—and it may lie within a circle of surrounding towns such as Stamford, Corby and Leicester—but it comprises a large number of small villages, and lots of fields in between. Last March, I met the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Robin Squire, to impress on him the concerns I had about the effects that the disaggregation of Leicestershire's funding would have on what was left for spending in Rutland.
  In his letter to me of 17 March 1997, the then Minister said:
  "When we met, we discussed whether the education SSA system correctly estimates spending needs in Rutland. As I said then, I confirm that we intend to look at this issue. Rutland is something of an exceptional case. Barring the Isles of Scilly, Rutland has the lowest scores of any LEA on the 'Additional Educational Needs' indicator, and the highest score on the sparsity indicator. Overall, it receives the seventh lowest SSA per pupil in the country. We recognise that actual budgeted expenditure on education in Rutland for 1996/97 is 9% more than Rutland would have received as an education SSA that year, had local government reorganisation taken place a year earlier."
  Mr. Squire went on:
  "I note that Rutland's education budget for 1997/98, at £11.15 million, represents a substantial cash reduction from the spending on education in Rutland in 1996/97. As I said on 6th March, I am keen to look further at Rutland's SSA. Once we have the council's analysis, we will be able to see whether Rutland does have a good case for change; and if it does, we can then start to consider rectifying any problems identified."
  Rutland does indeed have a good case for change. The transport costs in 1997–98 from home to school were £507,000; and 3.4 per cent. of children have statements of special need—the national average is 2.8 per cent.—and specialist provision has to be bought from outside the county.

  871
  There are two military bases in Rutland: RAF Cottesmore and RAF North Luffenham. The latter is running down this year and is due to be replaced by an Army base, so Rutland has to bear the cost of empty school places until the Army actually moves in. It is not as if anybody can attack the education department in the council for being expensive: it is not. Spending on the education directorate and information services is £123,000, or 1.3 per cent. of the education budget, which compares very favourably with larger authorities.
  Rutland has a group of 17 primary schools, in a sparse rural area, that have attained the highest literacy targets in the country; is the highest achieving authority at key stage 2; and has the highest percentage of any local education authority of children achieving level 4 or above; but it is facing a severe squeeze.
  The whole of the secondary sector has decided to go grant maintained. Rutland has no responsibility for 16–19 provision, which is funded by the Further Education Funding Council, but it still has to pick up the tab for some residual duties. It has to deal with special educational needs for the over-16s; youth provision; mandatory student awards and grants; and matters such as liaison with the further education sector and careers provision. The current cost of post-16 provision, excluding special needs and youth provision, is £268,000 a year, but the post-16 element in Rutland's education SSA for 1997–98 is only £90,231.
  Following local government reform, Rutland has to pay more than £1 million of capital financing costs directly to Leicestershire county council, yet it has no control whatever over those costs. Our highly efficient, low-cost, enlightened unitary Rutland council has embarked on a new era with all the best will in the world, only to be handicapped by an archaic funding formula that leaves it in the lurch.
  Rutland merely wanted to run its own affairs based on the perfectly reasonable expectation that it might continue to get about the same amount as before. It is pretty unfair, to put it mildly, that it should be asked to survive on less. I am complaining not about underfunding but about inequity.
  Clearly, the current formula does not reflect the needs of the community in Rutland and, therefore, does not work for Rutland. To be fair, that may not be an event unique to Rutland. The Minister will no doubt have received representations from other rural authorities because, if press reports are to be believed—they sometimes are—rural authorities elsewhere are concerned that an extra burden is being placed on the residents of rural shire areas, who face larger council tax rises than their urban counterparts.
  In the past year, Rutland has attempted to work with other councils to find common ground on which to lobby the Government about the inadequacy of the current funding formula. It has not altogether succeeded as no other council is quite like Rutland. However, the need for a review of the formula is clear. A Conservative Minister promised that it would be reformed. Now, we have a different Government and I hope that the new Minister will take the matter in hand and give me a firm assurance as a matter of some urgency that the shortcomings of Rutland's funding formula will now be tackled.
  10.45 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on securing this Adjournment debate so that we can discuss the funding situation in schools in Rutland, of which he has been a doughty champion. As he mentioned, he brought delegations to see me last year and, last March, to see the Under-Secretary in the previous Government, to argue the case for funding for schools in Rutland.
  I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the primary schools in Rutland in particular on the excellent standards that they have been able to achieve. If all the primary schools in the country achieved such standards, I would probably not be required and would be redundant as a Minister for School Standards.
  The figures are well worth disclosing to the House. In the 1997 key stage 2 test results for level 4—the level to which most children should aspire—the average in Rutland in English was more than 75 per cent., compared with the average in the country at large of just 62 per cent; in mathematics, Rutland achieved nearly 79 per cent., compared with the national average of 61 per cent; in science, it achieved more than an 82 per cent. success rate, compared with 68 per cent. nationally. Those figures are good and say a lot about the quality of education being offered in Rutland primary schools.
  We must do all we can to ensure that that level of success is not put at risk by any decisions that the Government take, and that is why we welcome this opportunity to discuss the funding arrangements for Rutland. Before I do that, it is worth putting the matter in the national context of the additional funding that we have been able to provide for education for the financial year 1998–99.
  In his Budget statement on 2 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional new funding for our school system in capital and recurrent spending. On capital spending, we now have the new deal for schools, which means that in 1997–98 an additional £83 million is to be made available, from which schools in Rutland will benefit. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, we expect about £2 billion in extra capital to be spent in our schools—both from Government grant and from private and other public bodies. That is money which will be used to repair, renew and improve school buildings.
  On day-to-day spending, we are allocating an extra £835 million in England alone for the next financial year, which is over and above the Budget provision made available by the previous Government, bringing the increase to more than £1 billion in recurrent spending for the financial year 1998–99. That is a good example of redirecting Government priorities within the overall public expenditure totals.
  I agree with the hon. Member that, in many respects, Rutland is in a unique—certainly a highly unusual—situation: Rutland's education standard spending assessment for 1998–99 represents an underlying increase of 3 per cent., or some £330,000. The capping rules that the Government apply ensure that all that money can be passed on to its schools.
  There has been an underlying increase in Rutland's capping level of £610,000 in the overall budget. I say underlying increase because, comparing like with like,

  873
  I do not believe that it is the £1 million to which the hon. Gentleman referred but, on a genuine comparison, more like £610,000. Within that overall increase in the capping level, there is an opportunity for Rutland to pass on the £330,000 extra that we have provided in education SSA.
  The hon. Gentleman raised several important points about how the SSA regime affects schools in Rutland. I want to make two points about the SSA regime. First, all local education authorities accept that the key factor that should determine the overall national financial settlement that each authority receives is pupil numbers. If pupil numbers in an authority are increasing, it should be reflected in the SSA calculations. I think that most of us agree that the opposite should also apply. When pupil numbers fall, it is right and proper that that reduction should be reflected in the SSA calculations. That is part of the problem that Rutland experienced.
  Pupil numbers in Rutland have fallen by some 2 per cent. while they have risen by almost 1 per cent. nationally. It is that difference in pupil numbers which led to Rutland's receiving a below average SSA increase. It also reflects some particular pressures that are unique to Rutland and that the Government want to address. I shall come to that later.
  For the record, it is worth reflecting on the per pupil increase in Rutland. As a result of the additional £1 billion that we are putting into education for the next financial year, Rutland's primary and secondary education SSA will increase by more than £120 per pupil, providing in 1998–99 £2,065 of education SSA for each primary age pupil and £2,594 for each secondary pupil. That amounts to an increase of more than 5 per cent. over this year's education SSA per pupil—a real-terms increase, above the rate of inflation, of SSA for individual pupils.
  The education SSA does not set out to allow the same level of spending per pupil but to take into account regional and local variations. As the hon. Gentleman said, Rutland receives less education SSA per pupil than most other authorities. Only 10 local education authorities get a smaller amount of education SSA than Rutland. It is worth noting that Rutland's average SSA allowance for education is 8 per cent. below the national figure. The present formula, which we inherited from the previous Administration, does not do many favours to schools in Rutland. However, we have an opportunity to review it.
  It was impossible in the time available after the general election on 1 May to review the formula fundamentally in detail for this year's local government settlement. However, the Government are to embark on a wide-ranging review of the SSA regime. We hope to have a new system in place for the financial year 1999–2000. I want Rutland to give its views on the changes that should occur to make the system fairer. I would welcome the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman and a delegation from Rutland to go through in detail the changes that schools in Rutland feel would be appropriate to meet their particular requirements.
  It is worth recording that the Government have also made available specific grant—additional money—to the schools in Rutland for the coming financial year. The hon. Gentleman said that the standards fund allocations require
  874
  an.additional contribution from the local education authority. That is true for all LEAs. Rutland has done better for next year than it has done this year and it has recently been allocated an extra £18,600 for the purchase of new books in schools. Even if we allow for the local authority contribution, that will be a real-terms increase.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to difficulties arising from the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme. It is true that Rutland's budget will have been reduced as a result of the changes for under-fives funding. The Government intend to make available nationally in England a further £125 million in the financial year 1998–99 specifically for early years funding. Rutland will be invited to apply for that money and it will be provided at the rate of 100 per cent. grant and will not count against the local authority's cap. Whereas Rutland has lost out because of changes in the education SSA methodology for under-fives provision, it will have the opportunity to make an application to fund early years plans. We can provide additional resources to Rutland from the £125 million that we have identified for that purpose.
  I know that capital funding is also an issue of concern in Rutland and the rest of the country. In this financial year, we are pleased that, in the first phase of the new deal for schools, we have been able to provide additional funding for schools in Rutland. We have invited bids for the second round of new deal funding, and I shall be interested to see the applications made from Rutland.
  In addition to the new deal, we have changed the way in which we allocate credit approvals in the form of annual capital guidelines. For the financial year 1998–99, more than £16,000 of credit approval has been allocated to Rutland. That arises from changes that the Government have introduced in the funding regime. It is worth noting that had the policies pursued by the previous Administration still been in place, Rutland would have received no more than £1,000.
  Funding for schools in Rutland is an important issue. Particular matters are related to the grant-maintained sector, but, today of all days, I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that we want a fresh future for the schools in Rutland. It will receive a 5 per cent. increase in its education SSA per pupil and, this year, an extra £330,000 will be available for schools in Rutland. If it chooses to use some of that money to help its secondary schools, we will change the grant-maintained funding regulations to allow it to do that.
  We recognise the unique position of Rutland and, when we review the SSAs for next year, we will be pleased to meet a delegation led by the hon. Gentleman. Education is a priority for the Government. We intend to get it right for the benefit of the children of Rutland and of the country. I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has provided to discuss how we believe we can bring benefits to the children of Rutland. I would welcome a meeting with him so that we can go through in detail exactly how we can be of assistance.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to assist the Government's initiative on social exclusion. [27592]

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in combating social exclusion. [27610]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department is working with the Social Exclusion Unit to ensure that we make the fullest use of opportunities for all DCMS sectors to play their part in helping to tackle the problems of social exclusion.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the management of the Royal Opera house. [27596]

  Mr. Fisher
  My Department has received approaching 1,300 letters on the issue of opera. A number of these has addressed the question of management of the Royal Opera House.

  Media Diversity
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with Rupert Murdoch or his representatives on diversity in the British media; and if he will make a statement. [27597]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have not held any meetings with Mr. Murdoch or his representatives from News International or News Corporation since the election last May. I have indeed met Mr. Mark Booth, the Chief Executive of BSkyB, in which News International has a 40 per cent. shareholding, to discuss a range of broadcasting issues.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage the use of libraries by children. [27599]

  Mr. Fisher
  It is very important that children are introduced to the wealth of information available in libraries at an early age. This is primarily the responsibility of local library authorities, but the Government have role in establishing the framework for the delivery of public library services. My Department therefore requires all library authorities to report on their services to children in their Annual Library Plans.
  450
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage use of information technology in libraries. [27605]

  Mr. Fisher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran).

  National Lottery (Disbursement)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the equity of lottery funds distribution as between London and the rest of the United Kingdom. [27602]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In our White Paper, "The People's Lottery" we made it clear that we wish to see Lottery funds allocated fairly and equitably in the light of need across all regions and parts of the United Kingdom. I am pursuing this through measures in our Lottery Bill and through changes to the Policy Directions which I issue to distributors.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to meet the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission to discuss its code of practice. [27604]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 25 September 1997 I welcomed Lord Wakeham's proposals for strengthening the newspaper industry's code of practice, and added that I intended to discuss further protection for people in all walks of life with him. I propose to do so in due course.

  National Lottery (East Anglia)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that national lottery distributors take account of local needs in the East Anglian region. [27607]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Lottery Bill will require distributors to produce strategic plans for their funding activities, which reflect their assessment of needs. The plans will be drawn up after wide consultation, which will include local authorities and other local and regional interests.

  Tourism Forum
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the new Tourism Forum will help the tourism industry in the Yorkshire region. [27612]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I am working closely with the Tourism Forum and its Working Groups to develop an effective, comprehensive strategy for tourism which will benefit all regions, including Yorkshire, into the next century.

  Health Care Projects
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on his proposals for a sixth good cause from health care projects in the Bexley and Greenwich area of south-east London. [27613]
  451
  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received no such representations.

  National Lottery (Women's Interests)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure women's interests are properly reflected in lottery awards. [27608]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Securing access to the benefits of the Lottery for everyone is a fundamental aspect of our policy on Lottery distribution. Among our proposals which I expect to benefit women particularly are funding for out of school child care and healthy living centres, and distributors' plans for a one-stop shop service for community grants.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those categories of person entitled to concessionary television licences; if he will review the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [29274]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 13February1998]:Entitlement to the concessionary television licence is determined by the accommodation occupied and the way it is provided or managed. Details of the qualifying criteria are set out in a leaflet prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government's Agreement with the BBC provides for a review of future funding arrangements prior to March 2002. We shall conduct that review in good time to allow decisions to be taken before then. It will include a detailed consideration of licence fee concessions. However, there are no plans for changes to the concessionary scheme in advance of that review.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage overseas film-makers to use British studios and expertise. [27703]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I am currently co-chairing with Stewart Till of PolyGram Filmed Entertainment a Film Policy Review which, amongst other things, is looking at further ways of promoting inward investment into the UK.

  The British Film Commission and the network of regional film commissions already undertake work to encourage overseas film production to this country.

  In addition, the introduction in the Budget of accelerated 100 per cent. write-off on film production and acquisition has been widely welcomed as an incentive to increase investment. The British Screen Advisory Council has estimated that the new tax relief will generate a 31 per cent. increase in investment in film production over the next three years.
  452

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent estimate has been made by his Department or its non-departmental public bodies or consultants reporting to his Department of the number of radioactive packages(a) imported into, (b) exported from and (c) transported within the United Kingdom within the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will outline the conditions under which any shipment of radioactive material has to be notified in advance to his Department. [27988]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Data on the number of radioactive packages transported into, from and within the UK are not collected by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or by the Environment Agency. However, it can be estimated that of the order of 500,000 packages of radioactive material are carried by road annually in the United Kingdom (source: Radiation Exposure from the Normal Transport of Radioactive Materials within the UK 1991 Review, by R. Gelder, NRPB Report NRPB-R255, a copy of which is held in the Library).

  Requirements for notification in advance of shipment are given in paragraph 456 of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 1985 Edition (As Amended 1990), a copy of which is held in the Library. Notification is required for:
  all type B(M) packages; all transports made under special arrangement; and any type B(U) packages containing radioactive material in excess of defined quantities.

  Freight
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the amounts of freight transported in England and Wales in 1996. [28009]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  1,724 Million tonnes of freight was loaded for transport by road, water and pipeline in England and Wales in 1996. Information for rail freight is available only for GB as a whole. In 1996 a total of 100 million tonnes was loaded for transport by rail for delivery within GB. There will be an element of double counting in these figures as some freight shipments will be transported by more than one mode in a single journey.

  Rail Services
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the percentage of scheduled rail services cancelled or which failed to reach their final destination, (b) the percentage of scheduled rail services which ran to within 10 minutes of the scheduled arrival time and (c) the subsidy per 1,000 km of scheduled train mileage in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1992. [28611]
  453
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Passenger's Charter Performance figures for the years in question are:

  Percentage

  1997

  1992–93

  Punctuality1

  90.3

  89.7

  Reliability2

  98.8

  98.7

  1 Percentage of trains arriving within 5 or 10 minutes of scheduled time.

  2 Percentage of trains which were not cancelled or terminated before destination.

  Note:

  Full details of the methods for calculating the punctuality and reliability measures for individual train operating companies are set out in the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising's Performance Bulletin.

  Information on subsidy per 1,000km of scheduled train mileage is not available. Estimates of grant paid per 1,000 passenger kilometres are:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  152.17

  1992–93

  241.04

  1 Based on estimated outturn OPRAF grant and Metropolitan Special Grants to PTAs of £1,800 million and 34.5 billion passenger Km.

  2 Based on Central Government and PTE grants paid to British Rail of £1,301 million and 31.7 billion passenger Km.

  Note:

  Figures in outturn prices.

  Energy-to-waste Facilities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what independent scientific advice he has evaluated on the quality of emissions from energy to waste facilities. [28508]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency is responsible for authorising emissions to air, water and land from large scale energy from waste facilities under the integrated pollution control system.

  The Agency publishes guidance to its inspectors on the standards with which such plant should comply. This guidance takes account of the Agency's own technical expertise, advice of consultants, non-governmental organisations and industry, and other relevant studies and reports from the UK and around the world.

  Alcohol (Petrol Stations)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into the safety aspects of people buying alcohol from garages and petrol stations when driving. [28325]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the sale of alcohol at garages and petrol stations. At present there are few outlets of this kind and it would be difficult to mount a representative survey. We are not aware of any significant problem of drivers who consume alcohol purchased at off-licences during journeys. Driving after drinking at public houses and similar establishments is a far more widespread problem.
  454

  Railtrack
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to tighten the regulatory regime under which Railtrack operates. [28605]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We want to make regulation of the rail industry more effective and accountable. We shall announce proposals in the Spring.

  Langstone Harbour
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if pollution in Langstone Harbour has resulted in the reclassification of shellfish; what assessment he has made of the effects on the local fishing industry; and if he will make a statement. [28651]

  Angela Eagle
  Classification of shellfish production areas, as required by the Shellfish Hygiene Directive, lays down health conditions for the production and marketing of live bivalve molluscs (such as oysters, mussels, clams). Under this system, shellfish harvesting waters at the northern end of Langstone harbour were downgraded in 1994 from category B to category C (which meant that shellfish products required a longer period of cleansing or heat treatment, before being offered for sale). Waters elsewhere in the Harbour remained category B. This reflects a monitored deterioration in water quality which may have been due to increased pollution from one or more sources such as a sewage treatment works, riverine inputs or run-off from agricultural land. There has been no further reclassification of shellfish waters in Langstone Harbour.

  Waste Water Treatment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of capital investment restrictions on the amount of finance water companies put into the upgrading of waste water treatment facilities. [28647]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not place restrictions on capital investment by the private sector water companies in England and Wales. In setting price limits, the Director General of Water Services takes account of the needs of water companies to finance the investment necessary to meet required standards, including standards for waste water treatment.

  Ofwat
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are OFWAT's K factor predictions for each of the next 10 years. [28648]

  Angela Eagle
  The table lists the K factors determined by the Director General of Water Services, taking into account any subsequent adjustments, for each of the water
  455
  and sewerage companies and water supply companies in England and Wales for each of the years 1997–98 to 2004–05. K factors for the years 2000–01 to 2004–05 will

  K (percentage)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Water and sewerage companies

  Anglian

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Dwr Cymru

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  North West

  2.5

  2.5

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Northumbrian

  1.9

  1.4

  -2.1

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Severn Trent

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  South West

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Southern

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Thames

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Wessex

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Yorkshire

  0.0

  2.5

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Water supply companies

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  Bristol

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  -3.0

  -3.0

  -3.0

  -3.0

  -3.0

  Cambridge

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  Chester

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  Cholderton

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Essex and Suffolk

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  Folkestone and Dover

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  Hartlepool

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Mid Kent

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  Mid Southern

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  North Surrey

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  Portsmouth

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  South East

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  South Staffordshire

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  Sutton and East Surrey

  -1.2

  -1.2

  -4.7

  -1.5

  -1.5

  1.5

  -1.5

  -1.5

  Tendring Hundred

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  Three Valleys

  2.5

  2.5

  2.5

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  -1.0

  Wrexham

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  -2.0

  York

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Water Quality
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps OFWAT is taking to improve water quality standards. [28701]

  Angela Eagle
  The regulation and enforcement of water quality is principally the responsibility of the Environment Agency, in respect of the water environment, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, in respect of drinking water quality. Water companies themselves have the responsibility to ensure that they meet the quality standards set by legislation and enforced by those regulators. The Director General of Water Services has a primary statutory duty to secure that water companies properly carry out, and are able to finance, their functions. He also has general duties including one to further conservation of, among other things, flora and fauna, and one to take account of the effect of proposals on flora and fauna, but he is not responsible for improving water quality.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the relationship between the Environment Agency, OFWAT and the water companies. [28634]
  456
  be redetermined by the Director General at the 1999 periodic review of prices. No K factors have yet been determined for subsequent years.

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are reviewing the regulation of the utilities, including the water companies and the role of the Director General of Water Services. There are no present plans to review the relationship between the Environment Agency and either the Director General or the water companies.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress his Department has made with regard to future policy for water charges; and if he will make a statement. [28683]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are reviewing the system of charging for water and sewerage services and will make proposals on water charging in a consultation paper to be issued shortly.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the number of domestic water consumers(a) who have chosen to have water meters installed and (b) who now live in properties with water meters where there is no rateable value. [28682]

  Angela Eagle
  (a) The Office of Water Services reports that between 1990–91 and 1996–97 inclusive, 500,453 household customers in England and Wales opted to have

  457
  water meters installed. Figures for earlier years do not identify whether meters were installed at the customer's request.

  (b) No separate figures are kept for the number of metered households in properties with no rateable value.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce an obligation on water companies to provide a free meter installation service for customers. [28721]

  Angela Eagle
  Most water companies already provide free meter installation in some or all circumstances for household customers on request. The installation and use of meters is being considered as part of the Government's review of the system of charging for water and sewerage services. We shall make proposals on water charging in a consultation paper to be issued shortly.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that any undertakings made by London and Continental (Union Railway) to affected parties on the route of the CTRL outside their parliamentary undertakings will be honoured by any successor company. [28679]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As my right hon. Friend explained in his statement of 28 January 1998,Official Report, columns 461–74, the CTRL Development Agreement provides for London and Continental Railways to come forward with revised funding proposals in the following 30 days. The question raised by the hon. Member does not, therefore, arise at this point.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what noise and pollution alleviation measures for residents in London will be required for those proposing to construct the high speed Channel Tunnel rail link. [29497]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In designing and constructing works authorised by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, the nominated undertaker must comply with certain Environmental Minimum Requirements, including a Code of Construction Practice. In preparing submissions for approval by local planning authorities under the Act, the nominated undertaker must take into account various objectives and measures set out in the Code. The Code also requires the preparation and implementation of several Environmental Management Plans, including ones for Traffic, Dust and Noise and Vibration.

  Driving Licence (Elderly People)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require drivers aged 70 years and over to have their health questionnaire from the DVLA countersigned by their family doctor. [28895]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no current plans to change the present arrangements under which applicants, of whatever age, for issue or renewal of ordinary driving licences are required to declare any relevant or prospective disabilities. False declaration is a serious offence. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency makes further inquiries of doctors or specialists where necessary.
  458

  Vehicle Imports
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will limit the charges vehicle manufacturers can levy to issue a certificate of compliance when importing vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [28958]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no current plans to introduce a limit. The charge manufacturers may make for issuing a Certificate of Conformity in relation to a vehicle Type Approval is effectively part of the cost of the vehicle and is not prescribed. To assist the movement of vehicles between member states in the EU, the European Commission has issued guidance which says that charges should be reasonable and not exceed about £67.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department took to ensure that drivers of 3.5 tonne vehicles were properly notified of the change in status of their vehicles to heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [28957]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There has been no change in the classification of goods vehicles between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes, which remain "light goods vehicles". The only recent change relating to such vehicles concerns driving licences. Since 1 January 1997 higher health standards and a separate driving test have applied to new drivers. The higher health requirements have also applied since 1 January 1998 to pre-1997 car licence holders with automatic entitlement to drive such vehicles wishing to renew that entitlement group when their car licence expires. These requirements also apply to minibuses with 9–16 passenger seats. This change was publicised in a Department of Transport Press Notice (No. 129) of 12 June 1997. The driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency also notify drivers before their existing licences expire.

  Severn Bridge Tolls
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on charging one-way tolls on the Severn Bridge; if he will review the policy of one-way tolls on the bridge; and if he will make a statement. [28363]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: Representations from local authorities have been received on this matter and in liaison with those authorities we have carried out studies to determine to what extent one-way or two-way tolling can lead to traffic diversion. These studies have not provided evidence that the benefits of a change to two-way tolling would justify the costs involved.

  Goods Vehicle Operator Licences
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to make parish councils statutory consultees when awards of goods vehicle operator licences are being considered. [28364]
  459
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: I am aware that a number of parish councils favour a statutory right of objection to applications for goods vehicle operator licences. This would require primary legislation and there would first need to be full consultation. We are currently reviewing this issue, but I would encourage local authorities to take the views of parish councils into account when considering whether to use their statutory right of objection.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what proportion of road deaths he estimates alcohol is a contributing factor; and if he will make a statement. [28953]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1996, a total of 15,500 people were killed or injured in accidents involving a driver over the legal limit of 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. Of those, an estimated 540 were fatalities. Records of the blood or breath alcohol reading of a driver involved in an accident are not normally kept in cases where the level is below the legal limit.

  The consultation paper "Combating drink driving: next steps" reviews the available data on drink-drive accidents and estimates the likely effect of a reduction in the legal blood alcohol limit. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of road accidents and deaths are caused by (i) excessive lorry driver hours, (ii) tachograph interference and (iii) defective lorries; and if he will make a statement. [28954]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Comprehensive information is not collected on causation factors in road accidents. It is not therefore possible to supply the specific information requested. The Department is, however, undertaking a number of research projects in order to improve its knowledge of accident causation generally. We are also planning research into the relationship between driving and working hours and fatigue related accidents.

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental appraisal will be undertaken of the implications of the Integrated Transport White Paper. [29019]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Environmental issues will be at the heart of the Integrated Transport White Paper. The policies under consideration for the White Paper are being appraised against their potential to contribute to the Government's overall environmental objectives.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" is currently that used by Government departments undertaking environmental appraisals. [29022]
  460
  Mr. Meacher
  Yes, the guidance in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" still applies, though further guidance is being prepared in the light of the July 1997 KPMG report. This report was commissioned by the last Administration to gauge how far they were meeting their commitment to assess the potential environmental impact of new policy proposals; it showed that more needed to be done to ensure that policies were systematically considered.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will shortly be issuing Policy Guidance for non-specialist staff across Government, explaining in relatively simple terms when and how to carry out an environmental appraisal.

  The Department is also working on further technical guidance for appraisal specialists, in co-operation with the Government Group on Environmental Costs and Benefits. A contract for a scoping study has been awarded to Dr. David Pearce, who is due to report in the Spring. This work will inform decisions on the nature and format of new guidance scheduled for the Autumn.

  Maritime Rescue
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the total number of(a) incidents, (b) incidents requiring co-ordinating action and (c) false alarms or hoaxes handled by each of the maritime rescue co-ordination centres in 1996; [29412]

  (2) if he will list the total number of (a) incidents, (b) incidents requiring co-ordinating action and (c) false alarms or hoaxes handled by each of the maritime rescue sub-centres in 1996. [29413]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is detailed in the tables:

  Co-ordination centres

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  False alarms and hoaxes

  Aberdeen

  670

  188

  482

  Clyde

  415

  256

  159

  Dover

  559

  258

  301

  Falmouth

  895

  345

  550

  Swansea

  958

  15

  443

  Yarmouth

  505

  191

  314

  Sub centres

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  False alarms and hoaxes

  Belfast

  303

  174

  129

  Brixham

  720

  456

  264

  Forth

  316

  160

  156

  Holyhead

  553

  322

  231

  Humber

  508

  375

  133

  Liverpool

  523

  274

  249

  Milford Haven

  445

  253

  192

  Oban

  255

  180

  75

  Pentland

  133

  85

  48

  Portland

  874

  548

  326

  Shetland

  123

  90

  33

  Solent

  1,207

  751

  456

  Stornoway

  224

  149

  75

  Thames

  771

  512

  259

  Tyne

  334

  219

  115

  461

  Coastguard
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the cost of setting up the integrated coastguard communications system project. [29414]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The overall cost of setting up the Integrated Communications System for the period May-December 1997 was £30,041. We have yet to invite tenders on this project and to disclose the anticipated cost of the system at this time would distort the process of competitive tendering.

  Aviation Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent studies(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority have commissioned into the economic value of the aviation industry to the United Kingdom. [29706]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No studies have been conducted by the Department or Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on the economic value of the aviation industry to the UK, but studies have been undertaken on additional capacity. Such studies include the RUCATSE study on runway capacity in the South East published in 1993, the evidence submitted by the Department and the CAA to the T5 Inquiry and a study by CAA (CAP 638) on the economic value of new air services to regional airports.

  Beaches
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines his Department issues relating to beach(a) hygiene and (b) safety. [29543]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department provides support to the Tidy Britain Group which promotes the Seaside Awards and Blue Flag awards, both of which are designed to encourage cleanliness and safety standards on beaches.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of beaches in the United Kingdom fail to comply with EU standards. [29545]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 4 December 1997,Official Report, columns 289–91, to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow local highway authorities to set 20 mph limits within urban areas without reference to his Department. [29603]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 11 February 1998,Official Report, column 228.
  462

  British Rail Land (Newhaven)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to prevent the sale by British Rail of land in Newhaven.[29446]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have endorsed the policy that BR should continue to dispose of its surplus land at market value. Interest in the Newhaven site has been expressed by more than one party including railway interests and BR is proposing to put it out to tender.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring of the impact of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips on(a) the aquatic environment, (b) the soil environment and (c) fisheries (i) has been carried out and (ii) is planned by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29724]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency, which is responsible for monitoring the aquatic environment and for day-to-day management of freshwater fisheries in England and Wales, has initiated monitoring programmes to assess the impact of sheepdip compounds (including synthetic pyrethroids) on the chemical quality of the aquatic environment (including any effects on fish populations). Monitoring has been targeted on the most intensive sheep rearing areas, including Wales and the Midland region. There is no specific monitoring of soil.

  Last month the Government published draft groundwater regulations relating to England, Wales and Scotland which specify additional monitoring requirements for groundwater, including synthetic pyrethroids.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sanctions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she has made in developing her policy of applying sanctions which are targeted at elites rather than ordinary people. [29748]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 288.

  Conferences
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [27734]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: I have listed the conferences held by my Department since 1 May 1997.
  463

  Conferences held by DFID since 1 May 1997

  Title

  purpose

  Estimated cost (£)

  South African Revenue Service Strategic Planning Conference

  To confirm strategic direction and agree key strategic implementation issues

  2,300

  Consultation on South African Local Government White Paper

  To collect and agree comments to feed into Local Government White Paper process

  1,500

  The Role of the State in a Changing World

  To present the World Development Report to senior South African public servants

  24,000

  Gender Sensitisation Workshop for Swaziland Parliamentarians

  To sensitise the Parliamentarians to the strategic and practical gender needs of Swaziland men and women

  20,000

  Community Based Natural Resources Management Conference (CBNRM)

  To discuss approaches taken in CBNRM in South Africa

  2,000

  Regional Ecotourism Conference

  To stimulate and facilitate the further development of regional ecotourism

  20,000

  FAO International Livestock and the Environment Conference

  To discuss recommendations on making the most significant impact on future livestock development

  25,000

  Sierra Leone Policy Framework Conference

  To agree policy document and programme of immediate actions

  190,000

  Participation and Social Justice Conference

  To prepare for the 36"' session of the UN Commission for Social Development

  27,400

  NGO Conference

  To share experiences of lesson learning

  23,400

  Ethiopia Discussion Conference

  To share views, ideas and experiences on the political and social aspects of Ethiopia

  5,900

  White Paper Consultation on Support for Transition Countries

  To inform and enrich the thinking which will go into the development of a new strategy for support to transition countries

  12,400

  Public-private Partnerships for Development

  To discuss ideas and scope for public-private partnerships for development

  4,100

  Corruption and Development

  To review existing and applied research on corruption in developing countries

  21,600

  Demand Assessment in Water Sanitation

  To help develop DFID capacity for ensuring water and sanitation projects are demand-led

  21,000

  The Study of the Role of Co-operatives and Self Help Organisations

  To provide DFID with clear guidelines on the most constructive ways of contributing to the success and development of SHOs

  18,000

  Global Environment Facility

  Informal consultation meeting on the Global Environment Facility

  300

  Sexual and Reproductive Health

  To discuss research findings on sexual and reproductive health

  1,400

  Communicable Diseases Health Care in Unstable Situations

  To discuss research findings on communicable diseases To discuss research findings on health care in unstable

  3,000

  International Health Policy

  situations To discuss and consult international health policy with

  2,700

  UK development health partners

  6,000

  Annual Meeting

  World Bank/WHO Onchocerciasis programme Annual Meeting

  60,000

  Know How Fund Health Sector

  To review health sector projects and consider future health programmes

  400

  Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction

  To discuss economic growth and poverty reduction

  900

  China Poverty Seminar

  To discuss poverty in China

  300

  Foreign Direct Investment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to ensure that flows of foreign direct investment benefit poorer countries and contribute to development. [29690]

  Clare Short
  My Department is working extensively to increase the amount of beneficial trade and investment flowing to the developing world, particularly the poorer countries. The best way to increase such trade and investment is likely to be through efforts to secure a more open and transparent international trading regime. Apart from engaging in the international policy debate over fairer trade policy, we are working with our partner governments to encourage growth of the private sector within poorer countries. The Department's support for economic reform packages assists countries achieve macro-economic stability. Our good governance agenda 464
  aims to increase the competence and strength of government, including the key interfaces with the private sector such as the judicial system and revenue collection.

  I have also provided a grant to support the Ethical Trading Initiative which brings together the private sector, NGOs and unions to work on the implementation of ethical codes of practice for the production of goods sold in our shops. This will help promote best practice in overseas enterprises including many financed through foreign direct investment by improving the working conditions of their employees.

  Philippines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the British Government are contributing to the land reform programme in the Philippines. [29118]
  465
  Clare Short
  We are not making any direct contributions, but Christian Aid are using their block grant from my Department to part-fund a project to educate farmers in Cebu and Leyte of their legal rights under the Agrarian Reform Law and to establish People's Organisations capable of representing their interests. Similarly, Oxfam have been using their grant on a legal training project with indigenous peoples which includes issues of land and ancestral rights. The European Union is financing a 20 million ecu Agrarian Reform Support project.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Family Law
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the family court welfare work of the Probation Service and other related services. [30171]

  Mr. Straw
  As part of the comprehensive spending review, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are considering the range of services currently provided to the courts on child welfare matters within family law by the Probation Service. Guardian ad Litem and Reporting Officer Service and the Official Solicitor's Department. We believe that a new integrated service subsuming the work of each of the above could provide an improved service to the courts, better safeguard the interests of children, reduce wasteful overlaps and so increase efficiency.

  I have therefore agreed with my right hon. Friends that further detailed work involving practitioners and other users of the services should be undertaken to form the basis for public consultation.

  The detailed terms of reference for the work are as follows:
  To identify the range of welfare services currently provided by the Probation Service, Guardian ad Litem and Reporting Officer Service and the children's work of the Official Solicitor's Department and other agencies in family proceedings, and to consider the scope for improvements to the effectiveness of their work through the creation of a new unified service.
  To make proposals on the structure of a new service; to provide preliminary analysis of the estimated costs and benefits as a basis for public consultation; and to consider the implications for any new structure of the Government's plans to establish a Welsh Assembly.

  Fraud Trials
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review alternative methods to jury trial in serious fraud cases. [30172]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are determined that there should be effective measures in place for tackling financial fraud.

  The Government recognise that there are concerns that the present system for handling some major complex fraud trials is not working satisfactorily. Therefore, I have today issued a consultation document which has been placed in the Library. This invites views on the principle of whether the system is likely to operate better and with
  466
  a greater degree of public confidence if, in a small number of complex fraud trials, a traditional jury were to be replaced by another method of determining the facts. Views are also sought on four possible alternative methods of trial. The Government have not reached a conclusion on whether the ending of a jury trial in serious fraud cases is desirable in principle or formed an opinion on any particular option for change and will not do so until the consultation process is complete. The purpose of the consultation is to provide a full opportunity for the principle of change to be considered in the context of the problems presented by these case and possible alternative trial methods.

  Comments on the document are invited by 31 May 1998 and we shall consider them all carefully before reaching any conclusions as to whether any changes should be made.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in relation to the Data Protection Bill[Lords], he will ensure that the Data Protection Commissioner is empowered to enforce the rights granted to data subjects by Clause 12 of the Data Protection Bill [Lords]; and if he will make a statement. [29042]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Clause 12 empowers courts to order the rectification, blocking, erasure and destruction of inaccurate data and opinions based on them. Clause 38 enables the Commissioner to serve enforcement notices in respect of such material.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce data protection measures to ensure that any information concerning fair obtaining is given to the data subject, in advance of any processing by the data controllers, and if he will make a statement. [29040]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Bill, introduced in another place on 14 January, specifies the content and timing of such declarations.

  Hillgrove Farm, Witney
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost to the police of protecting Hillgrove Farm in Witney in 1997. [28997]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand from Thames Valley Police that the total cost of policing Hillgrove Farm in 1997 was £415,935.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the PA Consultancy has been asked to recommend whether his Department should(a) continue with its current timetable for the awarding of the planned PFI contract for providing information technology services, (b) award the contract several months earlier than currently proposed or (c) discontinue the PFI. [29389]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 13 February 1998): Given the speed of change in information technology (IT), the Home Office will continue to keep under review the options for taking forward its IT projects. PA Consulting has been commissioned to examine the interface between

  467
  the planned Private Finance Initiative procurement, the Department's Year 2000 compliance projects, and other planned upgrades of office systems. It is too early to say whether this work will lead to changes in current plans.

  Charity Act 1992
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Part III of the Charity Act 1992 to be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [29304]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 13 February 1998]: Consideration is currently being given to the implementation of Part III of the Charities Act 1992, which seeks to rationalise the provisions for the licensing of street collections and house to house collections currently contained in the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and the House to House Collections Act 1939. It is not envisaged that Part III will be in force before the end of 1998; the practical issues involved are complex and it is essential that these are fully examined before any decision is made. Later this year, I hope to be in a position to announce proposals for taking this matter forward.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [28936]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: The information requested for official and constituency engagements in January is as follows. In addition, I attended a number of meetings within central London by car.

  Tuesday 6 January
  Visits to Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution Brinsford, West Midlands Probation Service, West Midlands Fire Service and Her Majesty's Prison Grendon, near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. Train from London to Wolverhampton. Car used to travel between venues and return to London.

  Friday 9 January
  Constituency meetings in Blackburn. Train from London to Preston and return by train on Saturday 10 January.

  Thursday 15 January
  Visit to West Yorkshire Probation Service Victim-Offender Unit in Leeds.
  Visit to Ravenscliffe Estate in Bradford. Aeroplane to Leeds/Bradford Airport. Car used to travel to Bradford from Leeds and then from Bradford to Blackburn.

  Friday 16 and Saturday 17 January
  Constituency meetings in Blackburn. Train from Preston to London.

  Monday 19 January
  Visit to a Refugee Council Day Centre, Vauxhall, London. Car.

  Friday 23 January
  Visit to Her Majesty's Prison Wayland.
  Visit to North West Norfolk, for speech at Kings Lynn. Car.

  Thursday 29 and Friday 30 January
  Chaired Informal Justice and Home Affairs Meeting in Birmingham. Train from Euston to Birmingham. Return journey by car to Oxfordshire 30 January and London 1 February.
  468

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which the Animal Procedures Committee has met(a) representatives from Imutran and (b) representatives from Novartis giving in each case the purpose and outcome of the meetings. [29445]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Representatives from Imutran, led by the Director of Research, made presentations to the Animal Procedures Committee on two occasions. The first was made to the primate sub-committee on 23 January 1997. The second was made to the whole Committee on 29 January 1998.

  On both occasions, the presenters outlined the benefits of xenotransplantation for human patients and examined the current research programme involving the transplantation of genetically modified pig hearts to baboons, with particular reference to immunosuppression.

  The purpose of these presentations was to provide the Animal Procedures Committee with up to date information on the Imutran research programme and to facilitate consideration of applications from Imutran for project licence authorities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Imutran was taken over by Novartis in April 1996. There have been no meetings with the Animal Procedures Committee by representatives from Novartis outside these two occasions.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his budget for defence of the civil community from nuclear attack and aid from his Department in the event of terrorist and other nuclear incidents in the current year; and if he will make a statement; [29717]

  (2) what is his budget for defence of the civil community from chemical and biological attack and for aid from his Department in the event of terrorist and other chemical and biological incidents in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [29718]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office is responsible for civil defence and provides grants to some local authorities as a contribution towards the cost of their emergency planning arrangements. In the current financial year, the total civil defence grant available is £14,457 million. The grant is provided to support emergency planning for the complete range of incidents, however caused.

  A series of classified contingency plans exist for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats, including those which might involve the threatened or actual use of nuclear, chemical or biological materials.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is the lead Government department for nuclear incidents at civil installations in England and Wales.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been cautioned for
  469
  possession of cannabis (a) once, (b) twice and (c) three or more times, by police force region, in each year since 1986. [29249]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not available since data are not routinely collected on whether a particular caution is the first or a subsequent one given by the police to an individual. However, special exercises were carried out for the 1991 and 1994 Criminal Statistics using information from the Home Office Offenders Index. These indicate that in 1994, of those cautioned, 15 per cent. had a previous caution, compared with 20 per cent. in 1991. The later sample was drawn after Home Office circular 18/1994 had been issued. This circular specifically discouraged repeat cautioning and cautioning for the most serious offences.

  Speed Cameras
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to pass funds raised from fines for speeding identified using a speed camera to the police forces concerned. [29761]

  Mr. Michael
  None. Hypothecating the revenue from speeding fines would result in expenditure on traffic enforcement being determined by the income generated rather than the relative priority of the activity. We are examining the current funding arrangements for the cameras to see what more might be done.

  World Cup
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure the safety of British fans at the World Cup finals in France. [27590]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are determined to do everything possible to help ensure that British fans attending the World Cup Finals in France this summer do so in a safe and secure environment. To achieve this, we have established a World Cup Co-ordinating Group which brings together official, policing and football representatives from both England and Scotland. They are all working closely with the French authorities, who are responsible for the management and security of the tournament. This is to ensure a co-ordinated approach to maximise the safety and security of supporters en route to and from France and whilst attending matches during the tournament.

  We are very pleased that the French Organising Committee (CFO) are adopting the stewarding methods used in this country so impressively during Euro '96. We are also aware that the French authorities have studied the British system of crowd safety management. There has been considerable liaison and consultation between the French authorities and British representatives and we will continue to ensure that we provide that high level of co-operation up to and throughout the tournament.

  Later this month, my right hon. Friend will be hosting a seminar in Blackburn on the policing of football which will bring together relevant experts from across the European Union to discuss policing, safety and security arrangements for the World Cup and to share advice and expertise.
  470

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of CCTV on the crime rate in neighbouring areas; [29364]

  (2) what statistical evidence his Department has collated on the impact on crime levels of the introduction of CCTV. [29365]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office Police Research Group study, "CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies" has shown that closed circuit television (CCTV) can be effective in reducing crime and fear of crime, particularly when it is deployed as part of a wider crime reduction strategy. This research, and also research sponsored by the Scottish Office on a CCTV scheme in Aidrie, revealed no evidence of displacement of crime from areas which had CCTV coverage to neighbouring areas which did not. The Department keeps under review the research literature on CCTV and we will be assessing the evaluations of effectiveness produced by the schemes which have received funding under the CCTV Challenge competition.

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if (1) the Advertising Standards Authority, (2) the Association of British Travel Agents, (3) the Automobile Association, (4) the Bar Council, (5) the BBC, (6) the Broadcasting Standards Council, (7) British Airways, (8) the British Medical Association, (9) British Midland, (10) British Railways Board, (11) the British Tourist Authority, (12) BT, (13) Cable and Wireless, (14) Cambridge Water Company, (15) the Charity Commission, (16) the Church of England, (17) the Church of Scotland, (18) the Confederation of British Industry, (19) the Defence Research Agency, (20) the Financial Services Authority, (21) the Football Association, (22) the Gaming Board for Great Britain, (23) the General Dental Council, (24) Great Western Trains, (25) the Independent Television Commission, (26) the Law Society, (27) the London Stock Exchange, (28) London Weekend Television, (29) the Millennium Commission, (30) National Express, (31) the National Heritage Memorial Fund, (32) National Power, (33) National Savings, (34) the National Trust, (35) the Newspaper Society, (36) the Office for Standards in Education, (37) the Office of Electricity Regulation, (38) the Office of Telecommunications, (39) the Press Complaints Commission, (40) the Prince's Trust, (41) PowerGen, (42) the Radio Authority, (43) Railtrack, (44) Ridge Parish Council, (45) the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster, (46) the Royal Opera House, (47) the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, (48) the Rugby Football Union, (49) Southern Electric, (50) the Sports Council, (51) Stagecoach, (52) Transco, (53) United Utilities, (54) the Universities and Colleges Admissions Scheme, (55) the University of Cambridge, (56) Virgin Trains and (57) Yorkshire Water are organisations(a) whose acts or omissions it is intended should be able to be challenged and (b) which perform functions of a public nature under the Human Rights Bill [Lords]. [29529]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 13 February 1998]: Clause 7(1) of the Human Rights Bill enables an act of a public authority to be challenged on the ground

  471
  that it is unlawful under clause 6(1) of the Bill because it is incompatible with a Convention right. As to the definition of "public authority" under clause 6 of the Bill, I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I am giving today to his earlier Questions on this matter. It would be for a court or tribunal to decide in individual cases whether an organisation is obviously a public authority or, if it is not, whether it is nevertheless to be regarded as a public authority because it performs functions certain of which are of a public nature. In the latter case, it would also be for the court to determine whether the particular act or omission which it was sought to challenge was of a private nature.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if, to constitute a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill[Lords], a body must (a) receive public money and/or (b) fulfil a statutory responsibility and/or (c) have on the governing body one or more persons appointed by the Government; [29171]

  (2) if a body which (a) receives public money, and/or (b) fulfils a statutory responsibility and/or (c) has on its governing body one or more persons appointed by the Government is automatically a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill [Lords]. [29172]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]: Clause 6 provides for a non-exhaustive definition of "public authority" for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill. The term includes (i) organisations, such as central government and the police, which are so obviously public authorities that it is not necessary expressly to define them as such; (ii) a court or tribunal; and (iii) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, except where the nature of the act is private. The definition specifically excludes either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament. Following amendments to the Bill in Another place, the definitions in (ii) and (iii) above are currently qualified by clauses 6(5) and 6(6) respectively.

  It will be for a court or tribunal to decide in individual cases which come before it whether a person falls within the above definition.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Functions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the occasion of the official function held on 7 May at No. 10 Downing Street; who attended; and at what cost to public funds. [23836]

  The Prime Minister
  This was an official reception for Ministers. The approximate cost was £250.

  Official Residence
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 66, if he will list for the period since 1 May 1997, the items and costs of refurbishment of and improvements to the domestic living accommodation in Number 11 Downing Street. [26215]
  472
  The Prime Minister
  I do not propose to list every item in the domestic living accommodation in No. 11. I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 66, where I have accounted fully for refurbishment costs.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list by item the furniture, fittings and decorations purchased since 1 May with public funds for his official flat in Downing Street indicating the cost of each item not subjected to a formal competitive tendering process; if he will list for each item the reasons it was not subjected to competitive tendering; if more than one quotation was sought; whether the lowest price was accepted; what was the lowest quotation submitted; and what factors led to more than one quotation not being sought in respect of certain items; [26063]

  (2) if he will list by item all furniture, fittings and decorations purchased with public funds since 1 May for his official flat in Downing Street indicating the cost of each item subjected to a formal competitive process; and what was the lowest tender price submitted for each item; [26065]

  (3) if he will list the country of origin of each item of furniture, fittings and decoration purchased with public funds since 1 May for his official flat in Downing Street; and what factors led to the purchase of items whose country of origin was not the United Kingdom; [26067]

  (4) if he will list the date and time of delivery to Downing Street of each item of furniture, fittings and decorations purchased with public funds since 1 May for his official flat in Downing Street; and what factors governed the delivery time of each item delivered outside normal working hours. [26068]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 30 January 1998]: No. I do not propose to list every item in the domestic living accommodation in No. 11. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 26 January 1998, Official Report, column 66, where I have accounted fully for refurbishment costs.

  Foreign Secretary's Private Office
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister what evidence underlay the press briefing by his official spokesman that Ms Anne Bullen's appointment was a political one. [27282]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 February 1998]: Ms Anne Bullen was selected for the post of Diary Secretary by the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd. Ms Bullen was appointed under Paragraph 2(i) of Schedule 2 of the Diplomatic Service Order in Council 1991 which allows for exceptions to the normal Civil Service rules of recruitment.

  Mr. Gavyn Davies
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what meetings he has had with Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs in the last three months; and if he will make a statement; [27689]

  (2) what contact there has been between the No. 10 Downing Street Policy Unit and Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs over the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [27690]
  473
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 5 February 1998]: My staff and I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs will be part of the Government team visiting the United States of America this week; in what capacity he will be attending the talks in Washington; and if he will make a statement. [27691]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Mr. Davies was not a member of the official delegation.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister with whom Mr. Gavyn Davies will be attending meetings during his visit to Washington with the Prime Minister over the period 4 February to 7 February; and if he will make a statement. [28353]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]: Mr. Davies was not a member of the official delegation, although he did attend an informal seminar at my invitation.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost to public funds of taking Mr. Gavyn Davies to Washington for meetings with the US Administration; and if he will make a statement. [28367]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: Mr. Davies met his own travel and accommodation costs for the trip to Washington.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [28938]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 January 1998]: During January I have undertaken fourteen engagements in the London area where I have used a car; one engagement outside London where I have used a car, and; two engagements outside London where I have used a combination of car and train.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister if, under paragraph 69a of the Ministerial Code, Cabinet Ministers may take their spouses or permanent partners overseas at their own expense on official visits without his written permission. [28949]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: 1 refer the hon. Member to the final sentence of paragraph 70 of the Ministerial Code, a copy of which was placed in the Library in July 1997.
  474

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint one Minister with overall responsibility for overseeing the millennium computer compliance problem. [29505]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 February 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 12 February 1998, Official Report, columns 327–28.

TREASURY

  Hotels (VAT)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the full-year annual cost of reducing the rate of value-added tax on hotel accommodation to(a) 8 per cent. and (b) 5 per cent. taking into account the revenue effect deriving from the elasticity of demand for this service; and if he will make a statement. [28396]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 February 1998]: There are no reliable figures available on the amount of Value Added Tax paid on hotel accommodation.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [25182]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Each Treasury Minister has one official car available for use. The Government Car Service renews all official cars on a cyclical basis.

  EU Budget Contribution
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community for 1998–99 on the same basis as the figure in Table 5.A4 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98, page 123. [29606]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net payments to European Community Institutions for 1998–99 is £2,440 million.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the response of taxpayers to the introduction of self-assessment; and if he will make a statement. [28365]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: Eight million taxpayers sent in their self assessment tax returns by the 31 January deadline. It is particularly

  475
  reassuring to know that over 95 per cent. of those taxpayers without professional tax advisers met the deadline. This illustrates that the vast majority of ordinary taxpayers understood what they had to do and dealt with this aspect of the new system.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the advantages of exempting pensioners from fines resulting from the late completion of self-assessed income tax returns. [28206]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Only a small minority of pensioners are required to complete self assessment tax returns. And the large majority of people who are not represented by tax advisers, into which group many tax paying pensioners will fall, submitted their completed tax returns to the Inland Revenue well within the deadline. Anyone who had a reasonable excuse for failing to submit a tax return on time may appeal against the penalty.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he took to ensure that taxpayers who(a) completed their self-assessment tax returns before 30 September 1997 and (b) before 31 January 1998 were aware that they had to make a payment on account for the tax year 1997–98 in addition to their 1996–97 payment; what are the penalties for failing to make a payment on account for 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [28366]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: Information identifying the need to make a payment on account on 31 January 1998 for the tax year 1997–98, and how to calculate it, was included in the tax return package issued to all self assessment taxpayers.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much the income tax take will be(a) as a percentage of gross domestic product and (b) in cash terms in each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03 on current taxation plans; and how much of this is attributable to the abolition of dividend tax credits. [29194]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]: Projections for income tax as a percentage of GDP were published in Table B3 of the November 1997 Pre-Budget Report. Figures for income tax in cash terms for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 were published in Table S2.4 of the Supplementary Document to the November 1997 Pre-Budget Report. Projections of money GDP were published in Table B2 of the November 1997 Pre-Budget Report. Figures for the effects of the abolition of dividend tax credits on income tax receipts were published in Table 2.2. line 5. of the July 1997 FSBR.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss in revenue resulting from an increase in the single person's income tax allowance of(a) £50, (b) £100, (c) £150, (d) £200, (e) £250 and (f) £300; and how many people would be taken out of tax in each case. [29184]
  476
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]: Estimated full year costs at 1998–99 income levels are given in the table.

  Increase in non-aged and aged personal tax allowances £

  Full year cost at1998–99 incomelevels £ million

  Number oftaxpayers takenout of income tax000

  50

  310

  100

  100

  620

  180

  150

  920

  280

  200

  1,230

  410

  250

  1,540

  530

  300

  1,840

  630

  Euro
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact on employment of changes in the petro-currency status of the national currency upon the United Kingdom's accession to the euro zone, with particular reference to periods of international crisis. [28742]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]: The Chancellor has set out the five economic tests which will be used to assess whether it is in the UK's economic interest to join the single currency, and has made it clear that the bottom-line is the impact on UK employment and growth. The Treasury paper "UK Membership of the Single Currency: As Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" (published in October 1997) sets out the factors that would need to be considered, and identifies the UK role as an oil exporter as one of these factors.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extent to which United Kingdom industry and commerce will price their goods and services in the euro after its introduction but before the decision is taken on United Kingdom membership. [26809]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made any estimate of the extent to which United Kingdom industry and commerce will price their goods and services in the euro.

  However, the work of the Business Advisory Group indicates that the euro is likely to be used more widely by business than other foreign currencies are today. Firms with operations in, and firms that export to, countries which join the single currency are most likely to decide to price their goods and services in euro. In addition, although the euro will not be legal tender in the UK in 1999, firms will be able to use it here for various commercial purposes if they wish.

  Finance (No. 2) Act 1997
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations his Department has received since the enactment of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997, on measures contained in the Act. [24883]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I received a number of representations prior to the enactment of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997.
  477

  Diesel Duty
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of reducing duty on ultra low sulphur diesel to 2p per litre less than the duty on ordinary diesel. [26353]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs estimate that the cost of a 2p differential between duty on a litre of ordinary diesel and a litre of ultra low sulphur diesel from April 1988 would be about £5 million in financial year 1998–99.

  Spirits Duty
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue cost in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 of a 4 per cent. cut in spirits duty, commencing on 6 April 1999. [26354]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Cutting the spirit duty by 4 per cent. on 6 April 1999 will have no effect on revenue in 1998–99, but will cost approximately £30 million in 1999–2000.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many estates in the most recent year for which figures are available were entitled to the inheritance tax exemption for farmland; and what revenue he estimates was lost as a result of this exemption. [26195]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available information is in terms of inheritance tax relief for all agricultural property which covers farmland and other related assets. In 1997–98 it is estimated that about 1,200 death estates will benefit from agricultural property relief, at a cost to the Exchequer of around £70 million.

  Hypothecation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of hypothecation of taxation. [27163]

  Mr. Darling
  There are great difficulties with hypothecation. However, we look at each case on its merits.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 1998,Official Report, columns 647–48, on tobacco smuggling, if he will list the factors which account for the increase in the amount of tobacco smuggled, seized by HM Customs and Excise year on year since 1993; and what plans he has to set targets in conjunction with his EU counterparts to reduce the amount of tobacco smuggled. [28528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no doubt many factors but the two principal ones are the growth in tobacco smuggling itself and the increased effectiveness of Customs in tackling the smugglers. Also, since the introduction of the Single Market in 1993, the number of Excise Verification Officers has been increased from 220 to 330 in 1997.
  478
  An EU High Level Group was formed in March 1997 to analyse the nature and causes of tobacco and alcohol fraud, to identify solutions and to guide action at the relevant level within the appropriate Community framework. The Group is due to complete its work by the Spring.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 648, if he will publish the original timetable for the publication of the report on alcohol and tobacco smuggling, cross border shopping and fraud currently being prepared by HM Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [28517]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I asked the review team to present its findings by 31 December 1997. I and my Ministerial colleagues are considering the findings of the review in the run up to the Spring Budget.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of confiscated smuggled or bootlegged(a) tobacco and its products and (b) alcohol in each year since 1991. [27935]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that figures on the value of confiscated smuggled tobacco and alcohol products are not available. The revenue that would have been due on tobacco and alcohol products smuggled from other EU member states and detected by Customs in each financial year since the advent of the Single market has been as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Tobacco

  Alcohol

  1993–94

  1.3

  0.80

  1994–95

  4.0

  2.75

  1995–96

  6.8

  8.00

  1996–97

  17.6

  11.80

  I regret that no figures are available for the years prior to 1993–94.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence Customs and Excise has obtained of tobacco and its products and alcohol originating in countries outside the EU being smuggled or bootlegged into the United Kingdom; if he will list the countries concerned; and what price differential there is between alcohol and tobacco and its products in those countries and the United Kingdom. [27929]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is very little evidence of alcohol being smuggled into the United Kingdom from outside the EU. The main area of concern is cigarettes smuggled from the Canary Islands, Andorra, the Baltic States and from Cyprus transited through the Lebanon, Egypt, Libya and Malta.

  Information is not readily available on the price differential between alcohol and tobacco and its products in these countries and the United Kingdom.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) discussions he has had with and (b) what representations he has received from the European Commission regarding the impact on the travel

  479
  insurance market of the introduction of higher rate insurance premium tax; and if he will make a statement. [22625]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have had no discussions with the European Commission about their higher rate of Insurance Premium Tax. Officials in Customs and Excise have supplied information to, and had discussions with, the Commission on this measure.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he has decided to exclude spending on the Welfare to Work scheme from the control total. [28181]

  Mr. Darling
  We made it clear before the election that the resources needed to fund the New Deal would be provided from the Windfall Tax and would be additional to the spending plans set by the Conservatives.

DEFENCE

  Market Research
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26632]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Defence Analytical Services Agency, the Meteorological Office and the Hydrographic Office. I have asked the Chief Executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding expenditure incurred by his department, agencies and non-government public bodies in (a) 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  Apart from surveys undertaken by HYDR(O) and MET(O) who will respond separately, the department commissioned surveys of the general public to the value of:
  £481,383: 1996–97
  £458,675: 1 May 1997 to date.
  Details of the surveys are given in the tables attached.
  Unfortunately, we have no central records of the methodology employed in each survey so cannot subdivide according to your categories (i), (ii) or (iii).
  In addition the department, from time to time, undertakes surveys of its own employees, the Armed Services and other stakeholders. Information on these surveys is not kept centrally.
  I hope you will find this information useful.
  480

  MoD Expenditure on Surveys of the General Public, 1996 to date

  Date

  Description

  1996–97

  April 96

  Effectiveness of RNPT presentations and audience research

  April 96

  Soldier—Creative Development research

  August 96

  Advertising tracking

  August 96

  Army Officer Creative Development

  September 96

  Scottish advertising research

  September 96

  Army radio advertising research

  October 96

  Ethnic minorities advertising research

  September 96

  Territorial Army qualitative research

  November 96

  RAF events evaluation

  November 96

  Leuchars Air Show visitors survey

  October 96

  Territorial Army—quantitative phase

  October 96

  Continuous tracking

  December 96

  Army advertising tracking

  November 96

  Creative Development research for Soldier advertising

  January 97

  Image of The Army

  January 97

  Royal Navy Advertising—evaluation and attitude Survey

  February 97

  Wales & West Marketing Trial—research

  February 97

  Advertising tracking Be The Best

  March 97

  Be The Best advertising tracking—attitude survey

  Total Expenditure

  £481,383

  Date

  Description

  Since 1 May 1997

  June 97

  RAF advertising strategy

  August 97

  Navy advertising evaluation

  August 97

  Technicians Target market research

  August 97

  RAF Degree Package research

  August 97

  Army Presentation Team—evaluation

  September 97

  Attitudes to NATO

  October 97

  'Be The Best' branding research

  October 97

  Territorial Army advertising development research

  January 98

  Image of RAF/reactions to advertising concepts

  February 98

  Army fitness video research

  March 98

  RAF attitude survey and advertising tracking

  March 98

  Army Campaign Development research

  March 98

  Catterick Garrison Radio Trade evaluation

  June 98

  Be The Best Tracking Research

  November 98

  Army Ethnic Minority Initiative evaluation

  Total Expenditure:

  £458,675

  Note:

  Excludes HYDR(O) AND MET(O).

  Letter from J. P. Clarke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question about the levels of expenditure incurred on opinion polls, focus groups and market research. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, I have been asked to reply to you directly.

  Details of expenditure incurred for the periods requested and the surveys upon which this was expended are as follows: 1996/97

  (i) Opinion Polling—Nil

  (ii) Focus Groups—£32,500. User group meetings were held to establish worldwide customer requirements for a future Electronic Navigational Chart Service currently under development by the UKHO.

  (iii) Other forms of market research—£9,000.

  481
  This covers a general survey of professional merchant marine operators to identify strengths and weaknesses of UKHO products for future marketing action.

  Since 1 May 1997

  (i) Opinion Polling—Nil.

  (ii) Focus Groups—£500. This relates to a meeting of ship operators or those related to ships operations to discuss user friendliness of UKHO Charts and Publications.

  (iii) Other forms of market research—£37,800.

  The expenditure covers three separate market research exercises as follows:

  a. £8,300 was incurred in a survey at the London and Southampton Boat Shows in order to identify the interests of those visiting the UKHO exhibition stand (eg the balance of leisure to commercial customers) to assist improvements in the staffing, product displays and services offered at future shows.

  b. £15,000 was expended on a consultancy review of UKHO Customer Service Strategy which sought to provide an independent assessment of current UKHO customer service delivery performance and provide a strategy for developing customer friendly services and improving customer support.

  c. £14,500 has been incurred in obtaining consultancy support to develop an appropriate and acceptable pricing structure for Electronic Navigational Charts. The UKHO expects to be the first national Hydrographic Office to provide an electronic charting service. We therefore have no equivalent benchmark against which to set prices.

  I hope this reply has been of assistance.

  Letter from Peter Ewing to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure incurred by his department, agencies and non-governmental public bodies during 1996–97 and since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research. As Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office, supply of information in respect of this Agency falls within my area of responsibility.
  I attach a list of the surveys commissioned by the Met. Office during the periods concerned. The expenditure incurred, exclusive of VAT, amounted to £32,180 for 1996/97 and £116,874 for the period from 1 May 1997. Apart from £2,000 spent in this financial year on a CAA customer satisfaction survey, which was clearly aimed at a specific focus group, all of this expenditure falls into the third of your categories, other forms of market research. This research is, of course, in support of our activities as a Trading Fund with an annual turnover of £152M.

  Survey

  Year

  Purpose

  Public Perception Survey

  1996–97

  Establish Met. Office performance against targets laid down by the government to ensure proper public spending.

  Corporate Perception Survey

  1996–97

  Establish the perception of the branding and position of the Met. Office within the weather market.

  Employee Attitude Survey

  1996–97

  Establish the morale of The Met. Office in a time of change.

  Economic benefit of offshore industry for UKMO

  1996–97

  Establish the economic benefit of the offshore industry business to UKMO

  CAA customer satisfaction survey

  1997–98

  Establish satisfaction criteria of customers and users for the CAA.

  482

  DREAM Rig, Pendine
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department and its agencies have spent on developing and constructing the DREAM rig at Pendine to date; and what is the projected work load for this facility in each of the next five years. [28039]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 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 16 February 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the cost and projected work load of the DREAM (Dynamic Research, Evaluation and Assessment of Munitions) rig.
  The DREAM rig is located at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range at Shoeburyness in Essex, not at Pendine. It was designed and constructed by Hunting Engineering in 1988–89 for research on the behaviour of small scale 'model' warheads against a variety of horizontal and vertical surfaces at a cost of £68,000 (about £100,200 at 1997 prices).
  Last year the rig underwent a major modification at a cost of £58,000. The DREAM rig is now used to conduct research on the attack of high value fixed land targets.
  The estimated use of the rig is 10 days for each of the next two years. There are, as yet, no details of the likely use beyond that date.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list exercises by British forces outside Europe in 1997 by country and by participants. [29448]

  Dr. Reid
  I cannot provide a complete answer to this question since some information could, if disclosed, cause harm to defence, security and international relations. I am therefore withholding certain details under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Furthermore, exercises vary considerably in scale and full central records of all activity in which our forces have been engaged are not available. However, we do not have records of the more significant exercises, and details of British participation in exercises is given, by area, in the table. This table also includes details of the participating UK service and, where information is available, any overseas participants other than the host country. Where we have records that the host nation did not participate, this is indicated:

  Area

  UK participant

  Foreign participant (other than host)

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  Kenya

  Army

  UK only

  Kenya

  Army

  UK only

  USA

  Army

  —

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  Oman

  RAF

  —

  USA

  RAF

  —

  Falklands

  RN

  UK only

  Kenya

  Army

  UK only

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  USA

  Army

  —

  Canada

  Army

  —

  Gulf

  RN

  US, UAE

  Kenya

  Army

  UK only

  Kenya

  Army

  UK only

  483

  Area

  UK participant

  Foreign participant (other than host)

  Kenya

  Army

  UK only

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Brunei

  RN/RM

  —

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  Carribean

  RN/RM

  Barbados, Belize,GuyanaGrenada, Jamaica,St. LuciaTrinidad and Tabago,USA

  Carribean

  RN

  —

  Gulf

  RN

  —

  South China Sea

  RN

  Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Gulf

  RN

  —

  Gulf

  RN

  —

  Kuwait

  RM

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Gulf

  RN

  US, Bahrain

  USA

  RM

  —

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  Gulf

  RN

  —

  Canada

  Army

  —

  USA

  Army

  —

  USA

  Army

  —

  Canada

  Army

  UK only

  USA

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Falklands

  Joint services

  UK only

  Canada

  RN

  —

  USA

  RM

  —

  USA

  RAF

  —

  USA

  RM

  —

  Canada

  Army

  —

  USA

  Army

  —

  Qatar/Pakistan

  Joint services

  —

  Canada

  Army

  —

  Canada

  Army

  —

  USA

  Army

  —

  USA

  Army

  —

  Australia

  RN

  US

  USA

  RAF

  —

  Gulf

  RN

  US, France

  Canada

  Army

  UK only

  Canada

  Army

  —

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  USA

  Joint services

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  Army

  UK only

  Canada

  Army

  UK only

  Brunei

  Army

  —

  Gulf

  RN

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Oman

  Army

  UK only

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  USA

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  South China Sea

  RN

  Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore

  Canada

  Army

  —

  Jordan

  Army

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Falklands

  Joint services

  UK only

  New Zealand

  Army

  Australia, Malaysia, Singapore

  Brunei

  RM

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  484

  Area

  UK participant

  Foreign participant Area UK participant (other than host)

  Egypt

  Army

  US

  Kenya

  Army

  UK only

  Belize

  Army

  UK only

  Jordan

  RM

  —

  Kuwait

  Joint services

  —

  Mid East

  RAF

  —

  Red Sea

  RN

  UK only

  Gulf

  RN

  US, UAE

  Red Sea

  RN

  Germany

  Gulf

  RN

  Germany, Italy

  Gulf

  RN

  France

  Indian Ocean

  RN

  Pakistan

  Indian Ocean

  RN

  India

  Bay Bengal

  RN

  US, Canada

  Indian Ocean

  RN

  Thailand

  Indian Ocean

  RN

  Brunei

  South China Sea

  RN

  Indonesia

  Gulf of Aden

  RN

  France

  Pacific

  RN

  Australia

  Pacific

  RN

  Australia

  South China Sea

  RN

  Korea

  Pacific

  RN

  Australia

  South China Sea

  RN

  South Korea

  Pacific

  RN

  New Zealand

  South China Sea

  RN

  South Korea

  South China Sea

  RN

  Japan

  Pacific

  RN

  Australia

  Indian Ocean

  RN

  Australia

  Indian Ocean

  RN

  Australia

  Indian Ocean

  RN

  France

  Brunei

  RM

  —

  Singapore

  RM

  —

  Thailand

  RM

  —

  Malaysia

  RM

  —

  Zimbabwe

  RM

  —

  South Africa

  RM

  —

  Egypt

  RAF/Army

  —

  USA

  RAF

  —

  Malaysia/Australia

  RAF

  Singapore

  Oman

  RAF/RN

  —

  USA

  RAF

  —

  India

  RAF

  —

  Jordan

  RAF

  —

  Canada

  RAF

  —

  Overseas Tours of Duty
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amend his Department's regulations relating to military and civil personnel being accompanied by their spouses on overseas tours of duty. [27683]

  Dr. Reid
  We have no plans at present to amend the regulations relating to military and civil personnel being accompanied by their spouses on overseas tours of duty, although the situation is kept under review. Separately, consideration is being given to a revision of current rules relating to short-term visits by spouses who accompany senior officers on official duties.

  Ammunition Test Centre
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of transferring the NATO certified test centre for small-calibre ammunition from Cold Meece to Pendine at 1998 prices. [28041]
  485
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The cost of the construction of the NATO certified test centre for small calibre ammunition at Pendine at 1997 prices was £1,008,563. Inflation figures for 1998 are not yet available, so it is not possible to calculate the cost at 1998 prices.

  Small Arms Test Centre
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions were reached by the study produced in 1993 on moving the NATO small arms test centre in respect of the Eskmeals range; and if he will place a copy of that study in the Library. [28040]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The decision to move the small arms test centre from Cold Meece to Pendine was taken when the ranges were part of the Directorate of Proof and Experimental Establishments. Records of meetings held during July 1992 indicate that a working group considered three options for the relocation: to Pendine, to Shoeburyness, or to split the centre between Pendine and Shoeburyness. For strategic reasons, Pendine was chosen as the small arms test centre in January 1993. No consideration appears to have been given to the possibility of moving the centre to the Eskmeals range. Subsequently, the DGT&E Land Systems Asset Study was published, D/DTE (Land)9/24 dated 23 March 1993, which discusses two possibilities for the facility: Kirkcudbright and Shoeburyness. Both Eskmeals and Pendine were recommended for closure in this report. The report was, at the time, deemed to contain confidential information; I have asked for it to be reviewed to determine whether it can be placed in the Library of the House.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what requirements govern the permissible noise levels for low-level RAF flight training; and if he will make a statement; [29477]

  (2) what measures his Department takes to monitor the noise pollution generated by low-level flight training; and if he will make a statement; [29478]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce restrictions on the level of noise that flight training may create at ground level; and if he will make a statement. [29479]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department already places restrictions on the heights, speeds and operating procedures of military aircraft in the UK, which are designed to ensure that noise levels experienced on the ground represent a sensible balance between our essential training requirements and environmental considerations. The restrictions are kept under continuous review to reflect medical and scientific advice and experience of noise measurement surveys carried out by, or on behalf of, my Department.

  High-level Flights (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many high level flights, by military aircraft, over Greater Manchester there were in each of the last six months. [29255]
  486
  Mr. Spellar
  Area specific information on air traffic movements is not available.

  Nuclear Weapons (Test Veterans)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an Internet website for information on studies undertaken into health problems of nuclear weapons test veterans. [29273]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked my officials to investigate the possibilities of making such information available on the Internet. I will write to the hon. Member when these inquiries have been completed and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the principal export markets for British military sales; and what is the Government's strategy for promoting exports to them. [29196]

  Mr. Spellar
  The principal markets for UK defence exports are in The Gulf, Asia Pacific and North America. The Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) of my Department has developed, with industry, a five year Strategic Plan which identifies within these regions the top 22 markets and also the major prospects and sets out how Government and industry will work together to win business. This Plan is fully consistent with our foreign and security policy our international obligations and with Government Commitment to a strong defence manufacturing industry. It has helped DESO and companies to organise their resources more effectively and is improving our national performance in winning export orders which increased by 10 per cent. in 1997 compared with 1996.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the models of cars which(a) Government Ministers can choose from and (b) are currently used by all Government Ministers. [23581]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Cabinet Ministers are provided with an appropriate car, normally a Rover Sterling or another car from the Rover 800 series. Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State are provided with a choice of cars normally within the Rover 400 series or equivalent cars such as the Ford Mondeo, Vauxhall Vectra or Nissan Primera with a comfortable but not extravagant level of fit.

  The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister currently have the use of a Daimler 4.0 litre and a Jaguar respectively. Other Ministers use cars in the above categories. The main exceptions are where a difference model is used for security reasons or where cars of a different model were used by Ministers of the previous administration and to replace them would not be an efficient use of public resources.
  487

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Murder Victims (British Citizens)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects have been murdered abroad in the last 20 years; and in which countries. [29762]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our records in their current form date back to 1985. Since then 619 murders of British Nationals abroad have been reported to us. The countries concerned are:

  Afghanistan: 1

  Algeria: 3

  Angola: 4

  Antigua and Barbuda: 4

  Argentina: 1

  Australia: 27

  Austria: 2

  Bahamas: 4

  Bahrain: 1

  Belgium: 6

  Belize: 4

  Bermuda: 2

  Bolivia: 1

  Botswana: 5

  Brazil: 6

  British Virgin Islands: 1

  Cambodia: 1

  Cameroon: 1

  Canada: 10

  Cayman Islands: 1

  China: 1

  Colombia: 2

  Congo: 1

  Cyprus: 3

  Czech Republic: 4

  Denmark: 3

  Djibouti: 1

  Dominican Republic: 1

  Egypt: 7

  El Salvador: 1

  Estonia: 2

  France: 25

  Gambia: 1

  Germany: 17

  Ghana: 5

  Gibraltar: 1

  Greece: 13

  Guatemala: 3

  Guyana: 1

  Honduras: 2

  Iceland: 1

  India: 12

  Indonesia: 2

  Iraq: 1

  Israel: 4

  Italy: 6

  Jamaica: 12

  488

  Jerusalem: 1

  Kenya: 19

  Korea: 1

  Kuwait: 1

  Lebanon: 1

  Liberia: 1

  Malawi: 2

  Malaysia: 1

  Malta: 3

  Mexico: 3

  Mongolia: 1

  Morocco: 1

  Mozambique: 3

  Namibia: 2

  Nepal: 1

  Netherlands: 17

  New Zealand: 4

  Nigeria: 9

  Pakistan: 11

  Papua New Guinea: 6

  Peru: 1

  Philippines: 18

  Poland: 1

  Portugal: 11

  Republic of Ireland: 2

  Russia: 4

  Rwanda: 1

  Saudi Arabia: 5

  Somalia: 1

  South Africa: 55

  Spain: 58

  St. Lucia: 2

  Sudan: 6

  Sweden: 2

  Switzerland: 3

  Tanzania: 1

  Thailand: 13

  The Comoros: 6

  Togo: 2

  Trinidad and Tobago: 2

  Tunisia: 2

  Turkey: 8

  Uganda: 4

  United States: 71

  Venezuela: 1

  Vietnam: 1

  Yugoslavia: 8

  Zaire: 1

  Zambia: 7

  Zimbabwe: 16.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his discussions with his counterparts from other European Union countries indicated variance in the recollection of events relating to Schengen opt-in procedures agreed at Amsterdam. [29760]
  489
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Although it would not be appropriate to enter into the details of every discussion with other Ministers, ray right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not aware of any disagreement about what was said at the European Council. Not every Member State was categorical on whether a Spanish text was circulated. We are clear that it was not.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answers of 30 January 1998,Official Report, column 440, and 10 February 1998, Official Report, column 144, to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) concerning the Schengen opt-in procedure, which Minister consulted the Irish Foreign Minister; and what reasons underlay the difference between the two answers. [29766]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This was due to an administrative error. The answer I should have given on 10 February was as follows:

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary 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 these discussions.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on article K.7 (6) of the Amsterdam Treaty. [29375]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Article K.7 (6) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, will allow a member state or the Commission to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions adopted by the Council under Article K.6.2(b) and (c) of the Treaty on European Union.

  The grounds of review listed in Article K.7 (6) are identical to those already found in Article 173 of the Treaty establishing the European Community under which the validity of Community acts can be challenged.

  Article K.7 (6) will not permit challenge of measures taken by member states to give effect in their national law to any obligations resulting from framework decisions or decisions.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1998,Official Report, columns 36–37, on weapons inspections in Iraq, if he will list the British manufacturers of equipment found by inspectors in Iraq; and, in each case, itemise the equipment found and the number of the export licence. [29279]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 9 February 1998,Official Report, columns 36–37.

  UN Resolutions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those UN resolutions which have not been fully complied with since 1968. [29381]
  490
  Mr. Fatchett
  The UN Security Council has adopted 908 Resolutions since 1968. The General Assembly adopted an average of 144 resolutions a year between 1968 and 1975 and an average of 236 resolutions a year since then. These are publicly available. The information requested in the question could be obtained therefore only at disproportionate cost.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1998,Official Report, columns 544–45, if he will list the primary and secondary legislation brought forward to implement the judgments in each of the cases cited in his answer. [29501]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The primary legislation brought forward in order to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights was as follows:Sunday Times (1979): Contempt of Court Act 1981;
  Young, James and Webster (1981): Employment Act 1982, sections 2–14;
  X (Mental Patient) (1981): Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982, section 28 and Schedule 1.
  Campbell and Cosans (1982): Education (No. 2) Act 1986, section 47;
  Malone (1984): Interception of Communications Act 1985;
  O, H, W, B and R (Parental Access) (1987): Children Act 1989, sections 22 and 34;
  Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell (1990): Criminal Justice Act 1991, section 34;
  Boner and Maxwell (1994): Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, section 42;
  Hussain and Singh (1996): Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, section 28;
  Chahal (1996): Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.

  The subordinate instruments brought forward in order to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights were as follows:
  Golder (1975): Prison (Amendment) Rules 1976 (S.I. 1976/503);
  Dudgeon (1981): Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/1536; N.I. 19);
  Silver and Others (1983): Prison (Amendment) Rules 1983 (S.I. 1983/568);
  Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali (1985): Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, laid before Parliament on 15 July 1985 (HC 503);
  McCallum (1990); Campbell (1992): Prison (Scotland) Amendment Rules 1993 (S.I. 1993/2227);
  McMichael (1995): Children's Hearings (Scotland) Amendment Rules (S.I. 1996/1199);
  Benham (1996): Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/997).

  The primary legislation already brought forward which in the Government's view ensured that United Kingdom law was compatible with subsequent judgments of the European Court of Human Rghts was as follows:
  Fox, Campbell and Hartley (1990): Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, section 6;
  Findlay (1997); Coyne (1997): Armed Forces Act 1996, section 5 and Schedule 1; section 15; section 16 and Schedule 5; section 17.
  491
  In some cases, the action taken to ensure the compatibility of United Kingdom law with a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights may have been a combination of the above and other measures.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the compatibility of world trade agreements and national trade-related legislation which enables countries to bar spouses and their children from entry. [29292]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, a country may regulate the entry of foreign nationals as long as this does not impair or nullify benefits accruing under GATS commitments.

  USA (Exclusions)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on behalf of British women and children banned from the USA under trade-related legislation. [29289]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I and my colleagues continue to take every opportunity to make clear to the US Administration and Congress that we entirely reject such legislation.

  Helms-Burton Act
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom women and children have been banned from the USA under the Helms-Burton legislation. [29290]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are aware of two British families which have been affected by title IV of the Helms-Burton Act which allows the President to exclude individuals from the US.

HEALTH

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumption concerning private sector income has been made in(a) each PFI contract approved and (b) each PFI contract being planned. [28309]

  Mr. Milburn
  Two major acute Private Finance Initiative schemes involving private beds—Norfolk and Norwich Health Care National Health Service Trust and South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust—have reached financial close; their contracts include assumptions about income from these beds. Four other major acute PFI schemes are proposing to include private beds, but these projects have not yet reached financial close and assumptions about income from these beds is still subject to negotiations.
  492
  Information is not held centrally on assumptions concerning income from private beds in smaller scale (capital value of £10 million or less) and non-acute PFI schemes.

  The assumptions in the PFI contracts about income from private beds at Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust and South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust are as follows:

  Norfolk and Norwich
  The new PFI hospital will include a private patients ward with 20 beds. Patients will be treated by NHS staff and use NHS facilities for which the trust receives a fee. The trust anticipates that income from these beds will be approximately £2.6 million at 1996–97 prices.

  South Buckinghamshire
  A private patient operator will lease an area of the new building at High Wycombe from the trust's consortium (United Healthcare) and will pay for the construction of a private patients unit. The trust will receive an income of £100,000 per annum from private beds which will be operated by the private patient operator, rising to a maximum of £200,000 as the operator's turnover increases. In addition, the trust will receive income from the use of NHS clinical and other NHS services by the private sector operator.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what proportions spending on the NHS has in real terms grown in each year and on average per year during each Parliament since 1968; and what was the overall annual average. [28809]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is set out in the table. Information on National Health Service total spending prior to 1973–74 is not available as the data are not comparable with those for subsequent years.

  Year

  NHS total netexpenditurepercentage realterms growth1

  NHS total grossexpenditurepercentage real terms growth1

  1973–74

  2.9

  2.9

  1974–75

  11.2

  10.5

  1975–76

  5.4

  5.2

  1976–77

  0.5

  0.4

  1977–78

  -2.8

  -2.7

  1978–79

  1.6

  3.2

  1979–80

  1.7

  1.8

  1980–81

  10.1

  10.1

  1981–82

  2.0

  2.2

  1982–83

  1.6

  1.8

  1983–84

  1.0

  1.5

  1984–85

  2.2

  2.4

  1985–86

  0.2

  0.2

  1986–87

  3.9

  4.4

  1987–88

  4.3

  4.5

  1988–89

  3.5

  4.2

  1989–90

  0.8

  0.7

  1990–91

  4.1

  3.6

  1991–92

  6.7

  6.4

  1992–93

  5.9

  5.2

  1993–94

  0.6

  0.6

  1994–95

  4.1

  3.6

  1995–96

  1.7

  1.9

  1996–97

  0.6

  0.9

  493

  Parliamentary Term

  Net annual average increase percentage

  Gross annual average increase percentage

  1974–75 to 1978–793

  3.1

  3.2

  1979–80 to 1982–834

  3.8

  3.9

  1983–84 to 1986–875

  1.8

  2.1

  1987–88 to 1991–926

  3.9

  3.9

  1992–93 to 1996–977

  2.5

  2.4

  1 Using the Gross Domestic Product deflator of 26 November 1997.

  2 The Parliamentary term was from October 1974 to April 1979, for the purposes of this analysis the financial years 1974–75 to 1978–79 have been used.

  3 The Parliamentary terms was from May 1979 to May 1983, for the purposes of this analysis the financial years 1979–80 to 1982–83 have been used.

  4 The Parliamentary term was from June 1983 to May 1987, for the purposes of this analysis the financial years 1983–84 to 1986–87 have been used.

  5 The Parliamentary terms was from June 1987 to March 1992, for the purposes of this analysis the financial years 1987–88 to 1991–92 have been used.

  6 The Parliamentary terms was from April 1992 to May 1997, for the purposes of this analysis the financial years 1992–93 to 1996–97 have been used.

  Annual average real terms growth

  Net percentage real terms growth

  Gross percentage real terms growth

  1997–74 to 1997–98

  3.0

  3.0

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to announce the restoration of real terms increases of NHS funding to the average over the past three decades. [28813]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have increased the National Health Service spending plans inherited from the previous administration by almost £1.5 billion. We shall announce plans for future years in due course.

  New Smokers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the weekly numbers of new smokers. [28817]

  Ms Jowell
  No reliable estimate has been made centrally. However, information about the smoking habits of young people aged 16–24 in 1996, leads to an estimate of about 3,000–5,000 new smokers each week on average.

  Community Pharmacists
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the likely impact on the number of community pharmacies of the abolition of resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicines. [28697]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has made no such estimate. The question of resale price maintenance has been referred by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Restrictive Practices Court. Should the Court grant leave for the case to be heard, the implications for community pharmacies will no doubt receive full and proper consideration.
  494
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the financial savings to the NHS resulting from healthcare advice provided by community pharmacists. [28696]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have made no such assessment.

  NHS Hospital Beds
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the number of NHS hospital beds in each health authority area in England and Wales and (b) the number per head of population in each area, arranging the health authorities in order of the number per head of population. [28673]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested for England has been placed in the Library. Figures relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the number of NHS GPs in each NHS health authority area in England and Wales and (b) the number per head of population in each area, arranging the health authorities in order of the number per head of population. [28672]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available figures for England have been placed in the Library. Questions relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Homicide Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many independent inquiries into homicides committed by mentally ill people established under HSG(94)27 have not yet published reports but which are due to publish reports; [28658]

  (2) how many independent inquiries set up under Health Service Guidelines HSG(94)27 into homicides committed by mentally ill people have published reports since the publication of the Clunis report; [28657]

  (3) if he will make it his policy that the recommendations contained in inquiry reports published under HSG(94)27 are implemented by the NHS throughout England and Wales. [28659]

  Mr. Boateng
  Thirty two independent inquiries set up under Health Service Guidelines HSG(94)27 have published reports.

  Twenty four independent inquiries are currently underway.

  The purpose of independent inquiries in England is to ensure that lessons are learnt and remedial action is taken at local level. We expect the commissioning agencies to develop robust action plans in the light of recommendations. The National Health Service Executive monitors closely the implementation of these action plans.

  It would not be appropriate to require recommendations contained in local inquiry reports to be implemented nationally. We would, of course, take into account any recommendations which had significance for national

  495
  policy. We are already funding the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental illness to develop a national overview.

  There are separate arrangements in Wales for local mental health inquiries.

  Infant Formula
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to introduce new guidelines on information and educational materials relating to the Infant Formula and Follow on Formula Regulations of 1995. [29014]

  Ms Jowell
  I met the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association, which acts on behalf of the United Kingdom infant formula companies, in October of last year and with breastfeeding support groups and health professionals in December to discuss the draft guidelines on information and educational materials relating to the Infant Formula and Follow on Formula Regulations of 1995.1 listened to their concerns and will publish the guidelines later this year.

  Shoulder Dystocia
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the working group under the auspices of the Confidential Inquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy in preparing guidance on the management of shoulder dystocia; and when this guidance will be available. [29233]

  Mr. Boateng
  he report of the "Shoulder Dystocia Group" of the Confidential Inquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy will be published in the 5th Annual Report of the Confidential Inquiry before the end of July 1998.

  Guidelines on the management of shoulder dystocia will be included in the report and are currently being considered by the appropriate professional organisations with the intention of issuing guidance on clinical practice.

  Hepatitis C
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise awareness of the hepatitis C virus; and if he will make a statement. [29002]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has produced a range of publications for the National Health Service and the public to raise awareness of hepatitis C.

  Injecting drug misusers who share contaminated equipment are at increased risk of acquiring hepatitis C infection. The Guidelines for Doctors on the Clinical Management of Drug Misusers, last issued in 1991, are currently being revised and will be published later this year. They will include updated advice on the management of hepatitis C in drug misusers. The guidance to purchasers of drug treatment and care services, which the Department issued in March 1997, included advice for purchasers on dealing with those who seek testing for hepatitis C.

  The Chief Medical Officer's letter to all doctors in April 1995 about the hepatitis C and blood transfusion look back exercise included advice about the prevalence, epidemiology and treatment of hepatitis C.
  496
  The Department is funding representatives of the medical profession to produce clinical guidelines on the use of alpha interferon in treating hepatitis C which will be disseminated widely.

  The Health Advice for Travellers booklet contains advice for those travelling abroad on avoiding the risks of hepatitis C. The revised version of the Travel Safe leaflet which will be published later this year will contain similar information.

  The Department is funding the British Liver Trust to raise awareness and provide advice on hepatitis C and the Trust have produced a number of comprehensive leaflets.

  The Health Education Authority has published an information leaflet on hepatitis C for the public which may be obtained from general practitioner surgeries.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned in respect of the hepatitis C virus; and if he will make a statement. [29004]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1996, the Department made £1 million available for research into the natural history, prevalence, transmission and treatment of hepatitis C. The results of the research commissioned so far will become available over the next three years. A further £500,000 will be allocated this year to expand the research programme. In addition, the National Health Service Health Technology Assessment is finalising the arrangements for a research project to establish the effectiveness of the early treatment of chronic hepatitis C with alpha interferon.

  Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of each variant of CJD were identified in 1997; and how many resulted in death. [29417]

  Ms Jowell
  Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (CJD) is invariably fatal. Definite diagnosis of all types of CJD depends on the examination of brain tissue and is usually only made after the patient has died.

  The Department publishes monthly statistics showing deaths from all types of CJD. The latest were issued on 2 February 1998 and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the World Health Organisation has revised its statement of April 1996 that a link has not yet been proven between V-CJD in the United Kingdom and the effects of exposure to the BSE agent. [29757]

  Ms Jowell
  A further World Health Organisation consultation was held very recently. We expect to be informed of the outcome very shortly and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  War Disablement Pension
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the treatment of war disablement pension made by each local authority in calculating residential care assessments. [29284]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are national rules for the treatment of income to assess charges for residential care— the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992—which provide that a person must be
  497
  allowed to retain £10 of their War Disablement Pension, and the remainder is taken into account in the assessment of charges.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many postcards registering opposition to xenotransplantation he has received to date. [29440]

  Ms Jowell
  As of 12 February, 15,675 postcards have been received.

  Continence Pads (VAT)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 2 February 1998, to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow),Official Report, column 511, if he will list the financial effects resulting from the Value Added Tax Order of 1 January 1998. [29767]

  Mr. Milburn
  As indicated in my earlier answer, officials are still working on these issues.

  Health Authorities and Trusts (Deficits)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the deficits of each(a) health authority and (b) health trust for each of the last three financial quarters. [29511]

  Mr. Milburn
  The forecast surpluses and deficits for all health authorities and National Health Service trusts for the first three quarters of 1997–98 will be available in due course.

  Inequalities in Health
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with other Ministers on the effect of unemployment and poor housing on inequalities in health. [29597]

  Ms Jowell
  We have had a number of discussions with Ministerial colleagues at various times over the impact which unemployment and bad housing have on health inequalities. We have launched a number of initiatives that aim to make society more equitable, for example the reduction of Value Added Tax on fuel to 5 per cent., and those that will have a particular effect on the health of the most needy in society are explained in the recent Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation".

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to promote research into inequalities in health; and if he will make a statement. [29599]

  Ms Jowell
  There is considerable research evidence about the determinants of inequalities in health, but very little to indicate wheat interventions would be effective in reducing inequalities. Consequently, the Department is commissioning a programme of research into this area. The results of the commissioning process will be announced in due course.

  Additionally, the Department's Director of Research and Development chairs a co-ordinating group on research in inequalities covering funders working in this area.
  498
  The Department particularly welcomes and supports the Economic and Social Research Council programme on Inequalities in health.

  The Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health being undertaken by Sir Donald Acheson may suggest further areas where research would be valuable. The inquiry is due to report later this year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Activity
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those incidents evaluated as having potential terrorist organisation involvement which have occurred since 20 July broken down by type of incident; and what assessment the RUC has made as to the organisation involved in respect of each incident. [21516]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables provide details of terrorist incidents between 20 July 1997 and 25 January 1998.

  Attribute to Republicans1

  Attributed to Loyalists1

  Attribution Unknown1

  Deaths due to the security situation

  2

  13

  —

  Shooting Incidents

  21

  51

  21

  Bombing Incidents (include devices defused)

  20

  6

  2

  1 Statistics and attribution figures are subject to adjustment.

  2 The figures for Shooting Incidents includes paramilitary style attacks.

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

  Attributed to Republicans

  Attributed to Loyalists

  Total

  Shootings

  15

  18

  33

  Assaults

  26

  36

  62

  Total

  41

  54

  95

  Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what, for life sentence prisoners released in the past 25 years, was the average time served in prison for(a) Republican, (b) Loyalist and (c) other prisoners. [27393]

  Mr. Ingram
  The average time served in prison for life sentence prisoners released in the past 25 years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information is available for such releases since 1985, ie those recommended for release by the Life Sentence Review Board.

  Average period served by indeterminate sentence prisoners1 released on licence since 1985

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  14 years 4 months

  14 years 11 months

  12 years 3 months

  1 Includes life sentence and Secretary of State's Pleasure prisoners.

  Note:

  The classification into Republican and Loyalist is the perceived affiliation at the time that the offence was committed.
  499
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Republican, Loyalist and other life sentence prisoners have been released on licence in each year since 1970; and how many in each category have subsequently(a) been arrested (b) had their licence revoked or (c) been reconvicted for a similar offence. [27392]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested, where available, is set out below. The figures relate to life sentence and Secretary of State's pleasure prisoners.

  Indeterminate sentence prisoners released on licence since 1985

  Year

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Other

  Total

  1985

  4

  6

  0

  10

  1986

  7

  6

  2

  15

  1987

  14

  12

  2

  28

  1988

  7

  19

  2

  28

  1989

  12

  25

  1

  38

  1990

  37

  35

  3

  75

  1991

  14

  11

  1

  26

  1992

  21

  27

  0

  48

  1993

  18

  33

  3

  54

  1994

  32

  15

  2

  49

  1995

  8

  11

  4

  23

  1996

  9

  7

  3

  19

  1997

  5

  11

  0

  16

  1998

  2

  3

  4

  9

  Note:

  These figures include prisoners detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure. They exclude prisoners released on medical grounds or who provided significant assistance to the authorities.

  (a) This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) This information is readily available only for the period commencing 1985. The total number of licences revoked is 18: three Republican, 10 Loyalist and five Other. (c) Of the 18 prisoners whose licences have been revoked two have been reconvicted of further serious terrorist type offences: one Republican and one Loyalist.

  Danny McNamee
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what medical examinations of Danny McNamee have been conducted since his transfer to HMP Maze; and what medical conditions were identified. [27441]

  Mr. Ingram
  Medical records of individuals are confidential and are not disclosed publicly. Under the Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order an application may be made personally only by the patient or other person authorised in writing to make application.

WALES

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non- departmental public bodies in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii)1997–98 to date. [27737]
  500
  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The information requested is as follows:

  Internal fraud and theft

  Welsh Office

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  1995–96

  Number

  1

  —

  —

  Value (£)

  20

  —

  —

  Amount recovered (£)

  20

  —

  —

  1996–97

  Number

  6

  —

  —

  Value (£)

  998

  —

  —

  Amount recovered (£)

  332

  —

  —

  1997 to date

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  Value

  —

  —

  —

  Amount recovered (£)

  —

  —

  —

  External fraud and theft

  Welsh Office

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  1995–96

  Number

  —

  15

  17

  Value (£) —

  9,369

  34,808

  Amount recovered (£)

  —

  —

  1,034

  1996–97

  Number

  3

  5

  19

  Value (£)

  41,879

  5,217

  26,625

  Amount recovered

  —

  —

  —

  1997 to date

  Number

  —

  —

  8

  Value (£)

  —

  —

  9,187

  Amount recovered (£)

  —

  —

  —

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the gross cost to public expenditure in Wales if all local authority rents were to be reduced by 10 per cent.; and what would be the net savings in housing benefits. [28860]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The effects on public expenditure of a 10 per cent. reduction in council rents depend on what assumptions are made about the consequential adjustments to Housing Revenue Account Subsidy. If the reduction had applied in the current financial year and other elements within the subsidy calculation remained unchanged, the Welsh Office estimates that there would be a reduction of £26.6 million in rent rebates but an overall subsidy cost of £10.6 million. Because the rent reduction would marginally reduce the rate of increase in the RPI, there would also be a saving in benefits in the UK as a whole of about £1.6 million this year, rising to £6.1 million in the following year.

  Local Bus Services
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional money he will make available to local authorities in 1998–99 to enable them to subsidise local bus services; and if he will make a statement. [28998]
  501
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Welsh Office does not provide authorities with specific resources to subsidise bus services. Authorities have discretionary powers which— subject to available resources—enable them to subsidise local public transport services which they consider are essential to meet a social need.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 533, on inward investment to Wales, if he will list the criteria he uses to determine the areas of Wales which need most help. [29000]

  Mr. Hain
  The areas which need the most help are those which have the highest levels of unemployment and those areas which have been less successful in terms of industrial and economic development and in attracting inward investment. Classic examples which display some or all of these problems are in our priority areas of the south Wales valleys, mid Wales and south and north west Wales. But, while we focus and encourage, it is the companies with which we deal which must take the final decision on location, decisions which are based on a wide range of commercial considerations.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the future of EU aid to the poorer regions in the United Kingdom as a result of the new definition of eligibility for Objective 2 funds. [28995]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend met Commissioner Wulf Mathies on 12 December and underlined the importance the UK attach to the continued receipt of Structural Funds support after 1999. The eligibility of the poorer UK regions will, of course, be dependent on criteria laid out in the Structural Funds Regulations which are due to be published next month. We are already seeking to influence these and my right hon. Friend specifically asked the Commissioner to consider the inclusion of GDP within the new Objective 2 criteria, as a more appropriate measure of prosperity. Indeed this would be more consistent with the approach taken with Structural Funds more generally and with the criteria applied to Objective 1.

  Air Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a study of the future needs of air services and airports in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [28996]

  Mr. Hain
  I am currently undertaking a series of meetings with airport and airline owners and operators, including one based in Caernarfon, to assess the potential for establishing a scheduled air service between North and South Wales. Once these discussions have been concluded, I will consider what further work is necessary and how it might best be undertaken.
  502

  Strategic Roads Programme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce his strategic roads programmes for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29430]

  Mr. Hain
  The responses to the consultation exercise on the review of the Welsh trunk road programme are being assessed. I am not yet in a position to say when I will be able to give any indications as to the size, composition and overall strategy of the future trunk road programme.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what talks he has had with North Western Trains in respect of services on the Wrexham-Bidston Railway; and if he will make a statement. [29433]

  Mr. Hain
  I hope shortly to meet the Managing Director of North Western Trains to discuss the company's operations in Wales, including services on the Wrexham to Bidston line.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal in Wales. [29429]

  Mr. Hain
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the New Deal for 18–24 year olds has been operating in the West Wales Pathfinder Area since 5 January and the early indications are that young people and employers are embracing the programme enthusiastically. Around 1,000 young people have already been interviewed and West Wales businesses have pledged 750 jobs.

  The response elsewhere in Wales, where the New Deal will commence on 6 April, has been equally encouraging. Even before our advertising campaign commenced on 15 February, a considerable degree of employer interest has been evident. I welcome this interest and look forward to their involvement in making the New Deal a success.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what CCTV projects are proposed for Wales during the next 12 months. [29366]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  In 1997–98 the Welsh Office has approved Strategic Development Scheme capital funding of £140,000 for Bridgend CBC and £60,000 for Wrexham CBC for the provision of CCTV.

  All local authorities in Wales have delegated SDS capital and revenue resources at their disposal which they can use to support a wide range of projects including the provision of CCTV. However, we do not have firm details yet of whether local authorities have funded CCTV projects in 1997–98 or intend to do so in 1998–99.

  In addition, I understand that the Home Office is funding three town centre CCTV schemes in Wales following the third round of that Department's CCTV Challenge Competition. These are located in Monmouth, Prestatyn and Wrexham. The fourth round of the

  503
  Challenge Competition was announced on 24 November by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve mobile phone reception within Wales. [29362]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office officials have regular dialogue with representatives of the industry to discuss improvements in mobile phone coverage in Wales which is unsatisfactory in too many cases.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve public transport communications between North and South Wales. [29373]

  Mr. Hain
  I am currently undertaking a series of meetings with key transport operators to assess the potential for improved air and rail services between North and South Wales. I am also engaged in discussions with the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising. My conclusions will be reflected in a Welsh transport policy statement which will be published at around the same time as the forthcoming integrated transport White Paper.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the use of public transport in West Wales. [29372]

  Mr. Hain
  The promotion of public transport will be one of the key objectives of the Government's integrated transport White Paper, which is due to be published in the spring. A separate Welsh transport policy statement will be published at around the same time.

SCOTLAND

  Young People
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources are allocated by the Scottish Office for(a) monitoring performance regarding children's rights and (b) enabling young people's views to be represented in planning and policy making processes involving (i) the Scottish Office and (ii) local authorities. [24952]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office allocated £276,000 for the current financial year under the Social Work Grants Programme to voluntary organisations dealing with children's rights and interests. As part of my remit as Minister with responsibility for children, I will be considering the terms of a Child Strategy Statement designed to ensure that policy development across the Scottish Office takes due account of any likely effect on children's interests. I expect to issue a copy of this document to local authorities and other relevant groups. I am aware also of the Connect Youth Initiative and proposals from Save the Children Fund in Scotland, both of which seek to find effective ways of allowing the views of children and young people to be heard on a wide range of issues that affect them.
  504

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he took(a) to include other potential sites for the Scottish Parliament and (b) to invite modifications from the proponents of the existing proposals at the time when the Holyrood site was added to the short list of sites. [24951]

  Mr. McLeish
  A range of sites was considered before the original shortlist was drawn up. The Holyrood site was added to that list once it became clear that it would be available in a reasonable timescale. There was no reason at that point to add any other sites. Independent Design Feasibility Studies were commissioned on all four sites to allow a fair comparison of their potential to house the Parliament building.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for grants by students from Scotland to study at Scottish universities and colleges for the session 1997–98 were awaiting processing on 1 December 1997; and how many processed applications were unpaid. [26054]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Student Awards Agency for Scotland had a total of 13,732 applications for awards in respect of students attending Scottish universities and colleges awaiting processing on 1 December. At the same date 94,349 applications had been processed. Where the processing of an application results in a payment being due to a student, a Payable Order is generated automatically and is normally received by the student within seven days of processing. Apart from that delivery period, the only applications processed but unpaid were those which did not generate any payment due to the student. The applications awaiting processing included a significant number which were submitted late, or for which additional information had been sought.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide more funds to voluntary organisations whose work contributes to combating social exclusion. [29070]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]:The Scottish Office is already a major funder of voluntary organisations in Scotland, including those whose work contributes to combating social exclusion. Forty per cent. of the £1.4 million recently allocated to voluntary sector organisations for housing purposes will support work on homelessness. Voluntary sector organisations will also benefit from the £11 million allocated under the Rough Sleepers Initiative in September last year. At least 60 per cent. of the Urban Programme funding of £67.6 million in 1998–99 is expected to be allocated to voluntary organisations. Also in 1998–99, under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, grants totalling £6.9 million will be made to national voluntary organisations working in the field of social welfare to support their day to day work with children and families, people with disabilities or addictions, offender services and the homeless.
  505
  Further decisions on expenditure to tackle social exclusion, including support for the voluntary sector, will be considered as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. This process will be informed by the consultation exercise on social exclusion in Scotland, which is currently under way.

  Hyundai
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public funds have been spent in the preparation of the Hyundai site in Dunfermline, broken down by major items within the expenditure total. [29512]

  Mr. Wilson
  Expenditure by the Scottish Enterprise Network on acquiring, levelling and servicing the Hyundai site totals £14.340 million. The expenditure is made up as follows:

  £ million

  Cost of land purchase

  4.894

  Levelling of site

  3.977

  Utility provision - power

  3.600

  Utility provision - water

  0.774

  Utility provision - gas

  0.698

  Fees

  0.397

  In addition, a further £5.5 million has been spent on infrastructure works related to the whole of the 1,100 acre Dunfermline East Expansion Area, including the 150 acre Hyundai site. None of this expenditure relates specifically to the Hyundai project.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Green Pound Compensation
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown for(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Wales of the green pound compensation that was to be made available under the package announced on 22 December 1997, and the new levels of compensation available for each nation under the green pound compensation package announced on 3 February 1998; if he will state the differences between the figures under the two schemes in each case; if he will provide a breakdown of these figures for the hill livestock sector; and if he will make a statement. [28261]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 February 1998]: The information requested is set out in the table. The figures in brackets show that part of the totals which is payable to producers in the Less Favoured Areas.

  Estimated £ million

  22 December package

  3 February package

  difference

  (a) Scotland

  17.4 (14.9)

  23.9 (20.6)

  6.5 (5.7)

  (b) England

  24.7 (9.5)

  34.7 (14.0)

  10.0 (4.5)

  (c) Northern Ireland

  11.0(8.5)

  14.2(11.0)

  3.2 (2.5)

  (d) Wales

  6.9 (6.2)

  12.2(11.1)

  5.3 (4.9)

  506

  Retirement Packages
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from other European Union countries on retirement packages for the agricultural sector. [29250]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Veterinary Products (Ivomec)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Ivomec was first licensed for use in the United Kingdom. [29416]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our records show that the first use of the name "Ivomec" for a veterinary medicine was for a product licensed in June 1981. This is an injectable product for the treatment of cattle.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow the export of whole carcases of sheep over 12 months old. [29310]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 February 1998]: The Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 require the removal of the spinal cord of all sheep and goats more than 12 months of age by the splitting of the carcase, or by removal of a longitudinal section of the whole vertebral column containing the spinal cord. There is no exemption for carcases destined for export.

  We are currently considering representations received from various organisations about the impact of this provision on exports of carcases of sheep over 12 months of age.

  Food-handling Machinery (Lubricants)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for introducing regulations to ensure that only appropriate and food-compatible lubricants are used in food-handling machinery. [28743]

  Mr. Rooker
  As the production or sale of any food which is injurious to health or unfit for human consumption is already an offence under the Food Safety Act 1990, we see no need at present to introduce regulations specifically relating to lubricants used in food-handling machinery.

  Meat Imports
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to ensure that meat imported to the United Kingdom is from animals fed on animal foods which are as safe as those now used in the United Kingdom. [29236]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 2 February 1998,Official Report, columns 547–48.
  507

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the rates of absenteeism in her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to date; and if she will make a statement. [26594]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: My Department is responsible for 21 executive non-Departmental public bodies, 25 advisory bodies and 7 tribunals, one of which covers the 24 industrial tribunals, and another the 2 employment tribunals. I regret that only some of the information requested by the hon. Member is held centrally, and the complete details requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For the headquarters areas of the Department, the sickness absence database of the Occupational Health Service Agency Ltd. shows the average number of days sick leave per employee for the 1995 calendar year is 8.2. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 10 February 1998, Official Report, column 116, which announced publication of the 1996 figures, and show this Department's average number of days sick leave per employee during that calendar year as 7.6.

  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Agencies to write to the hon. Member. The management of sickness absence in the Department has been identified as a priority for line managers, with the aim of ensuring that absence rates are comparable to or better than those of similar organisations in the private sector.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about rates of absenteeism (sick leave) of staff in The Insolvency Service.
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for publishing sick leave data. The most recent in the report was issued on 10 February 1998 containing 1996 data. The figures for Service Staff for the last two available years were (working days absences per staff year):

  1995

  1996

  Certificated Sick Leave

  5.9

  3.3

  Self-certificated Sick Leave

  3.6

  6.05

  Total Sick Leave

  9.5

  9.35

  Staff Years

  1,642

  1,469

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply to the above Parliamentary Question with information about the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The average rate of absenteeism in the Radiocommunications Agency was as follows:
  1995/96: 0.74 days sick leave per staff member
  1996/97: 0.76 days sick leave per staff member
  1997/98 to date: 0.78 days sick leave per staff member.
  508
  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the rate of absenteeism.
  The rates of absenteeism for the last three years are set out in the table below:

  Year

  Days per member of staff

  1995–96

  11.9

  1996–97

  12.9

  1997–98 (April to November)

  10.3

  It should be noted that the high figures reflect a number of long term illnesses within the Agency. Five staff (10% of total) have had long term illnesses in the period concerned.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply, in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), to your question about rates of absenteeism.
  The ETS gained status on 1 April 1997 and I am able to inform you that, for the six months from April to September 1997, the absenteeism rate for the agency was 5.4%. For the periods before 1 April 1997, absenteeism in the ETS would be included in the reply from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment (for the former Employment Department).
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 February 1998:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the rates of absenteeism. Below are the statistics for the Patent Office:

  Year

  Number of working days

  Average per person

  Percentage of working days lost

  April 1995-March 1996

  8,770

  10.98

  3.87

  April 1996-March 1997

  5,673

  7.99

  3.06

  April 1997-September19981

  2,663

  3.70

  2.93

  1 Note 6 months.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated January 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the rates of absenteeism in DTI Agencies.
  The sickness absenteeism rate for Companies House for the years in question are as follows:
  1995/96: 5.6%
  1996/97: 6.0%
  1997/98: 5.7%

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long on average it takes her Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date her Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment she has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27031]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: My Department aims to send substantive replies to 77 per cent. of all letters within 10 working days and 98 per cent. within

  509
  a calendar month. Figures are collected in relation to all letters to Ministers rather than those from hon. Members alone.

  Since 1 May, 56 per cent. of letters were issued within the 10 day target. The average issue time for all letters was 12 days.

  The Department does not measure the time it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the powers of the dispute settlement mechanisms contained within the draft texts of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment to deal with contraventions of the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations. [29918]

  Mrs. Roche
  The MAI's dispute settlement procedures will not apply to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) which are a voluntary code of conduct of good corporate behaviour.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the implications of the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [29919]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are pressing for the close association of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in a manner which will not affect their legal status.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government will take to ensure that reservations under the Multilateral Agreement on Investment are binding and effective. [29950]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government will ensure that the UK's country-specific exceptions are drafted in such a way that they will be fully effective.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy not to sign the Multilateral Agreement on Investment unless it contains binding labour standards. [29955]

  Mrs. Roche
  When the final text of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is available, the Government will decide if it meets the UK's objectives. We will continue to press the case for a binding commitment not to derogate from labour or environmental standards in order to attract specific investments.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations have been held with small and medium-sized businesses about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [29978]

  Mrs. Roche
  My officials have consulted widely with business, including organisations which represent, among others, small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has made to the OECD on the participation of developing nations in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will make a statement. [28327]
  510
  Mrs. Roche
  In the MAI negotiations at the OECD the UK has strongly supported the view that the MAI should be open to all countries willing and able to meet the MAI's obligations. The Government have also supported a proposal for language to be included in the Agreement to clarify that the special needs of developing countries should be taken into account when they apply to join.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the gross domestic product of each county in England in each year since 1977. [29481]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest information for 1993 and 1995 is in the Economic Trends January 1998 edition, published by the Office for National Statistics on 15 January 1998. Information from 1977 is available in the House of Commons Library but figures are available only for selected years.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a chief executive of Action 2000 has been appointed. [24379]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: The Chairman of Action 2000 has appointed Ian Eddison as Acting Director and he has been in post since 17 December 1997. Action 2000 has advertised for a permanent Director and this is progressing swiftly with approximately 100 applications received by the closing date.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Action 2000 will be launched. [24377]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: Action 2000 launched its Millennium Bug Campaign on 22 January.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff are employed on answering the Millennium Bug Hotline; and how many phone lines can be operated simultaneously. [28582]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]: I understand from Action 2000 that there are six staff permanently assigned to the Millennium Bug Hotline with immediate recourse to an additional three to cope with fluctuations in demand. There is no fixed number of lines. Action 2000 is keeping performance under review and will consider expanding the resources if the need arises.

  Electricity Industry (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she proposes to announce her decision in respect of the application by the National Grid to construct new overhead power lines across North Yorkshire. [29550]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I shall reach my decision as soon as I properly and practically can.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the sterling value of inward investment
  511
  into the United Kingdom in (a) the three months prior to 31 January 1996 and (b) the three months prior to 31 January 1997. [28585]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]: Information on the value of inward investment is available on a quarterly basis only. Figures of the latest five quarters available are given in the table.

  Inward direct investment in the United Kingdom

  £ billion

  Year

  Flows

  Stocks1

  1996 Q3

  5.1

  137.7

  1996 Q4

  3.5

  138.7

  1997 Ql

  8.7

  147.8

  1997 Q2

  5.1

  152.9

  1997 Q3

  3.0

  155.9

  1 The stock of investment at the end of a period represents the net book value of the investment. It equals the stock at the end of the previous period plus the flow of investment during the period, together with adjustments for goodwill write-offs, revaluation of assets and exchange rate fluctuations. However, these adjustments are only carried out when the results of the annual inquiries are available. The figures for the most recent quarters are not so adjusted.

  Source:

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many submissions her Department has received expressing the view that differentials will be restored in whole or part following the imposition of a minimum wage. [27895]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: My Department has received a number of submissions which contain reference to the restoration of pay differentials following the introduction of a national minimum wage.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the impact on employment in the tourism industry in the South West Region of the introduction of a minimum wage. [29745]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations on the possible effects, including on employment, in the tourism and leisure industry following the introduction of the national minimum wage.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if(a) payments in kind and (b) board and lodging where living on the premises is a condition of employment, will be taken into account when assessing income for purposes of applying the minimum wage. [29805]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Low Pay Commission has been asked to make recommendations on what is to be treated as remuneration when assessing compliance with the National Minimum Wage.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the estimated costs for businesses of complying with the requirement that all employees be informed of the level of the minimum wage on pay-slips and other company documentation. [29687]
  512
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have made a commitment to consult with business over any secondary legislation to implement the National Minimum Wage Bill and indicated that they will produce a detailed appraisal of the impact associated with that secondary legislation. This would include any costs associated with a requirement to show the level of the minimum wage on pay-slips.

  Concessionary Coal
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes(a) are planned and (b) have been made with respect to the free coal scheme for miners' families. [22656]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Since liability for concessionary fuel for ex-employees of British Coal (and their dependants) transferred to the Government in March 1995, no changes have been made to the scheme.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announced on 11 February that it would be premature to introduce new arrangements, and that we are extending the consultation period for a while longer to consider all relevant issues before we make necessary changes.

  Our aim is to find a solution to future entitlements which is fair to all concerned, and which complies with EU legal requirements and the Fuel Agreements. We have listened to representations and the views of beneficiaries expressing concern about the entitlements, and have decided to make no change to existing entitlements while full and wide ranging consultations are in progress. Beneficiaries can be assured that they will continue to receive their present fuel type at existing tonnages while the consultations are underway.

  British Standards Institute
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the future of the British Standards Institute. [28652]

  Mr. Battle
  The British Standards Institution (BSI), the national standards body, is a Royal Charter body which is independent of Government. Its future is primarily a matter for its members.

  BSI's senior management, after consulting Government through my Department, have submitted proposed amendments to BSI's Royal Charter and Byelaws, which comprise its constitution, to an Extraordinary General Meeting of BSI's members on 27 February 1998. If BSI's members approve the amendments they will be submitted to the Privy Council Office.

  The main aim of the amendments is to allow BSI to expand its commercial activities, with a view to seeing its long term viability, while at the same time safeguarding the future of its standards facilitation activities.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice she has offered to traders holding stocks of fireworks which have become illegal to sell. [29443]
  513
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  On the few occasions the DTI has been approached by retailers they have been advised to discuss the issue of unsold stocks of prohibited fireworks with their suppliers. In some cases it is open to suppliers to re-export such fireworks to countries where national traditions mean that they are still acceptable and I understand that some suppliers are exploring this option.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government assistance is available to(a) firework manufacturers and (b) firework retailers to help them dispose of recently banned firework stocks. [29444]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Following discussions between the DTI and the Health and Safety Executive the latter has issued an exemption certificate to facilitate the return to suppliers of stocks of the prohibited fireworks which have been taken out of their original transport packaging. My Department has been in contact with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents to make sure retailers are informed and the information is being given to others who inquire about this issue. The trade association representing the firework industry is also aware that an exemption certificate has been issued.

  Trade Union Rights
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to increase trade union rights to recognition; and if she will make a statement. [26182]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: The Government are committed to enabling trade unions to obtain recognition where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them. We will consult fully on our proposals which will be set out in a White Paper to be published in the first part of this year.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in assessing the future export market for MOX fuel, she will evaluate projections by independent experts, with particular reference to the international MOX assessment final report of November 1997. [29500]

  Mr. Battle
  Evaluation of the future export market for MOX fuel is for the commercial judgment of British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL), taking into account all relevant financial and economic factors.

  The commercial and economic justification for the Sellafield MOX Plant is currently the subject of a further public consultation, on the justification of the proposed uranium commissioning and operation of the plant, being undertaken by the Environment Agency (EA). It is for the EA to decide on the justification for the plan on the basis of all evidence, including any reports, made available to them.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants in her Department at each grade for 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 she will indicate the Minister to whom each was responsible; and if she will make a statement. [26921]
  514
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Since 1 May the Regional Director for the North East has taken early retirement. None has resigned. There have been ten staff moves within the department involving posts at or above a level equivalent to what was formerly Grade 3 during that period. These have all been routine moves for career development or operational reasons (for example because a post has been abolished or a new one created). All Civil Servants in the Department of Trade and Industry are responsible to the President of the Board of Trade.

  Transfer of Undertakings
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government plan to amend the legislation giving employees the right to be informed and consulted through representatives in the event of a collective redundancy or the transfer of a business undertaking between employers. [29976]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has today published a public consultation document seeking views on proposals to amend this aspect of the employment protection legislation.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of current and projected skills shortages in the aerospace sector. [26810]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department works closely with the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) who are taking forward a programme of activities under the DTFs Competitiveness Challenge. Through the Competitiveness Challenge the SBAC have commissioned the Institute for Employment Services (IES) to conduct a survey into a number of aspects of people-management in the aerospace sector, including skills shortages. The IES's findings will be made public at the end of March.

  Engineers
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had recently with business in the West Midlands regarding the availability of skilled engineers. [28529]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade visited major West Midlands manufacturing companies on 26 January 1998. Similar visits to the region were made by myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in October.

  My Department is aware that skill shortages exist in the West Midlands in particular sectors, such as automotive and construction, which are key to competitiveness of the region. Local organisations, including schools, Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) and FE Colleges are responding to such shortages to encourage more young people into engineering. Examples of activity include TEC-funded Modern Apprenticeships in engineering, schools working with the Engineering Employers' Federation to give work experience in engineering and FE colleges working with specific employers to address skill needs. A particular example is an advanced engineering centre being developed at Sutton Coldfield College in conjunction with local employers including LDV.
  515

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what environmental appraisal will be undertaken in respect of the award of contracts to renewables developers under the Fifth Round of the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. [29017]

  Mr. Battle
  I expect projects to be contracted under the fifth Non Fossil Fuel Obligation to demonstrate high standards of environmental performance. This will require developers to consult widely on their project proposals so that their projects meet the concerns of the community likely to be affected. Award of NFFO contract does not confer any special privilege in the planning approval process which must be carried out in the normal way.

  Disqualified Directors
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 253, if she will make a statement on the procedures (a) for selecting newspapers to which press releases are sent in the vicinity of (i) the disqualified director's private address and (ii) the address of the failed company, (b) for the timing of the press release, before or at the end of any stay period and (c) on the extent to which the disqualified director is advised on these matters, including being sent a copy of the release. [29549]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Disqualification proceedings are held in open court to which both the public and the press have access. The newspapers which are offered briefing are selected by the Central Office of Information (COI) from a list held by them, such newspapers being those relevant to both the director's home address and to the trading address of the failed company. The press release is issued as soon as possible after the court hearing at which the director has been disqualified. The press release gives the date of the disqualification order and whether the director was given leave to be a director of any other company(s).

  Where directors ask whether there will be any publicity they are told that a press release will be issued and when requested a copy is made available to the director.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to(a) increase competition and (b) ensure fair pricing in the gas supply market. [29534]

  Mr. Battle
  By this summer, all domestic gas consumers in Great Britain should have a choice of supplier. Competition exerts a downward pressure on prices, and in the areas of the country which have already been opened to competition, consumers are able to benefit from prices which are up to 20 per cent. lower than those available from the former monopoly supplier. I am concerned that pre-payment meter users should also be able to benefit fully from the introduction of competition. This is an issue that is being considered as part of the Government's review of utility regulation.

  Centrica
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding the activities of Centrica. [29553]
  516
  Mr. Battle
  My Department receives representations concerning a wide range of gas issues in which Centrica will have some involvement.

  Transco
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the activities of Transco. [29533]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department receives representations concerning a wide range of gas issues in which Transco will have some involvement.

  Tableware Strategy Group
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the progress to date on the reconvening of the Tableware Strategy Group. [29419]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been considering this suggestion, along with other options, to identify how best we can work with the ceramics industry. Following discussions with the British Ceramic Confederation (BCC) and the Treasury, it may be that the Ceramic Industry Liaison Group (CILG) would be the most appropriate forum to take this process forward. This is an existing forum at which my Department, the DETR, The BCC and CERAM Research, the industry research Association, meet regularly to discuss issues of concern to the industry. My officials are also looking at the possibility of Treasury involvement.

  I mentioned this possible approach in my letter of 31 January 1998 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), which I have also copied to my hon. Friend. I shall consider the matter further when responses are to hand.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his estimate of the cost of the millennium experience. [27617]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The cost of the Millennium Experience and its associated national programme of events will be met by a grant of £399 million (net) from the Millennium Commission and forecast income totalling £359 million from sponsorship, commercial activities, visitor revenues and disposal income.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio to what extent the contents of the millennium dome will reflect Welsh and Scottish identities. [27618]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Millennium Experience at Greenwich and its associated national programme of events and activities will appeal to and be relevant to people of all ages and interests wherever they may live. The overarching theme, "Time to Make a Difference", will encourage participation of individuals in all areas of the United Kingdom. NMEC is setting up teams in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the nine regions of England.
  517
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on progress in securing financial sponsorship for the millennium exhibition. [27620]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) are at crucial stages of very promising negotiations with a wide range of companies.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the work of M&C Saatchi in respect of the millennium experience. [27621]

  Mr. Mandelson
  After full competitive tendering M&C Saatchi were chosen by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) to develop an integrated communications strategy for the Millennium Experience. This will incorporate media purchasing, production, direct marketing, Advertising Agency Service and other elements of integrated communications. That work is underway.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what consultations he has held with the appropriate local authorities about the impact of traffic relating to attendance at the dome in Greenwich. [27622]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company have had regular discussions with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, the relevant local authorities and London Transport to ensure that there is minimal traffic impact on Greenwich and its surrounding area.

  The site will be a car free zone. A multi-modal integrated public transport system, including new river boat services and the new Jubilee Line Extension, will provide a variety of means of getting to the Millennium Experience.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what percentage of his total personal ministerial travel, accommodation and related subsistence expenditure in respect of his work on the millennium experience has been devoted to visits to EU countries. [27623]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have visited Futuroscope in Poitiers as part of an official visit to France which cost approximately £970 in total; and Disney World in Florida as part of an official visit to the United States which cost approximately £3,450 in total.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how he intends to involve a representative selection of young people in the Millennium Dome project. [28229]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is developing proposals to ensure that young people across the country are able to put forward their views and ideas on the Millennium Experience at Greenwich and the associated national programme of events and activities. These proposals envisage Regional Junior Boards in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the nine English regions, each comprising twenty young people between the ages of 9 and 16, whom local education establishments and agencies have been asked to nominate. The Boards will be chaired by NMEC's518
  national programme Education Managers for each region, and will meet twice a term. NMEC's objective is to arrange the first such meeting this summer.

  The proposals also envisage that one member of each Regional Junior Board will sit on the National Junior Board, together with representatives of the major national youth organisations and agencies.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list(a) the United Kingdom publications and (b) the US publications in which contracts for the air- conditioning system of the Millennium Dome were advertised. [28132]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]: The contract for the design, manufacture and supply, testing and commissioning of mechanical and electrical plant for the Millennium Dome (including boilers, chillers, air handling units, standby generators, transformers and packaged substations) was advertised on 7 June 1997 in the Official Journal of the European Communities as required by European law on public procurement.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 432, on transport arrangements for the Millennium Experience, what discussions the New Millennium Experience has had with Scottish public transport providers. [27982]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company has had discussions with the Association of Train Operating Companies (of which ScotRail is a member), and is exploring ticketing options with the operators of large and small coach fleets in respect of scheduled services and private hire from across the UK.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  National Curriculum Tests
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the relative standards achieved at Level 4 in(a) Key Stage 2 and (b) Key Stage 3 National Curriculum English Tests; and what research underlies this assessment. [28789]

  Mr. Byers
  The Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is responsible for the standards demanded in statutory tests and takes a number of measures to ensure comparability of standards between Key Stages. These include cross-Key Stage pre-tests before the tests are finalised and script scrutiny to compare pupil performance across the Key Stage tests. QCA has published details of the test development process in its leaflet "Key Stages 1–3 National Curriculum Tests: Setting and Maintaining the Standards" and in its annual Standards Reports. I have placed copies of these publications in the Library.

  Local Colleges
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to encourage co-operation between local colleges and high schools. [28744]
  519
  Dr. Howells
  We are keen to encourage co-operation in post-16 education and training. Proposals will be published in the forthcoming consultation document on lifelong learning.

  Engineering and Technology
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he intends to take to encourage more women to undertake degrees in engineering and technology. [29600]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government acknowledge the need for top class scientists and engineers and the important role that Universities play in helping to bring that about. The Development Unit for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, which operates within the Office of Science and Technology, was established to encourage the increased participation of women in science, engineering and technology (SET) at all levels. It has produced various materials to encourage girls to consider engineering and technology as career options.

  WISE (Women in Science and Engineering), started in 1984 with support from the former Manpower Services Commission. It has a remit to raise the number of women studying these subjects and, since then, women's representation on these courses in HE has doubled. It continues to receive support from the Department of Trade and Industry.

  It is important that industry itself plays a full role in attracting girls to study engineering and technology subjects and that this will lead to satisfying career opportunities. It was unfortunate, for example, that the Women into Technology Foundation was not sustainable without public support. The Government continue to encourage industry to consider what further steps it might take, and to offer appropriate support.

  New Deal
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to extend the New Deal to the older unemployed. [29295]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We will be introducing the New Deal for those aged 25 and over, and unemployed for two years or more, in June. As we announced on 5 January, we have been considering a number of options for extending provision for those aged 25 or more who have been unemployed for 1 year or 18 months, and whether pilots could be introduced later this year.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the per capita funding for those unemployed who(a) are and (b) are not included in the New Deal. [29294]
  520
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Employment measures are not based on overall per capita cost. They offer a wide range of opportunities based on length of unemployment and individual need. Someone unemployed for over six months, for example, could attend a Jobclub at an average cost of £200 or undertake work based training for adults at an average cost of £2,510, including allowances. Similarly, the New Deal for 18–24 year olds could help one young person to find work during the Gateway at a cost of less than £100 to New Deal funds, and another to improve employability and then find work at a cost of over £5,000 to New Deal funds. The New Deal is in general resourced to make a real difference to the employability of young people and to contribute to reducing structural unemployment.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers of(a) young unemployed and (b) long-term unemployed expected to participate in welfare to work schemes in 1998–99, broken down by travel-to-work area. [27167]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 188.

  By convention, the Government do not publish forecasts of unemployment. In January 1998, 118,000 18–24 year olds were recorded as having claimed Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for six months or more; each month about 15,000–20,000 18–24 year olds reach six months' claimant unemployment. In January 1998 some 216,000 people aged 25 or over were recorded as having claimed JSA for more than two years; each month between 5,000 and 10,000 people who are 25 or over reach two years' claimant unemployment. It is not possible to break these data down to provide accurate estimates by travel to work areas.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  New Deal
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of people in Warrington, North who have declined to participate in the New Deal and who are owner-occupiers. [29601]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There will be a full and independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents which will examine all aspects of the programme, including participation rates. The evaluation will compare the outcomes for lone parents in the New Deal for Lone Parents areas with those in the control areas where the service is not yet available, and will be published in 1999.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Act.

Business: Written Answer
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal statement about a breach of parliamentary protocol involving the answering of a Written Parliamentary Question from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I have already apologised to the noble Lord on my own behalf, as I approved and signed the Answer to the parliamentary Question, and on behalf of the Government. I do so again today. I should also like to add the apology of the department concerned.
I have looked into the matter and can confirm that this unfortunate error arose because of a misunderstanding between the Cabinet Office (OPS Press Office) and the parliamentary branch. At approximately 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 12th February a press officer faxed to a journalist from The Times a copy of the Answer to the noble Lord's Parliamentary Question about government reviews and task forces. That was done in good faith and on the understanding that the Question had already been answered and was in the hands of the noble Lord and the
2
House authorities. In fact, the Answer had been signed by me but had not at that point been placed on the Peers' Letter Board or given to the House authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, sought an assurance that that would not happen again. I am happy to assure him and the House that steps have been taken to ensure that this situation will not arise again. The procedure will be that the parliamentary branch will only send copies of Answers to Parliamentary Questions to the Press Office once they have been not only approved by Ministers but also placed on the Peers' Letter Board and given to the House authorities. Once again, I apologise unreservedly to the noble Lord and to the House.

Disability Rights Task Force
2.38 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made by the task force on disabled people's rights.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Disability Rights Task Force has made good progress since its membership was announced on 3rd December 1997. It has met twice, on 16th December and 21st January, and in line with its terms of reference has been considering in detail the role and functions of a disability rights commission. The task force is expected to make recommendations to the Government. on the matter by the end of March.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, as thousands of employers still refuse even to interview disabled people for jobs, does my noble friend the Minister expect the next Queen's Speech to include legislation to strengthen and enforce the Disability Discrimination Act 1996? In the meantime, can my noble friend say how the task force is consulting people whose disabilities have not been

3
experienced by any of its members? Finally, is my noble friend aware how very much many of us appreciate her department's support for the core principles of my all-party. but long-obstructed, Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill: namely, that unjustified discrimination against disabled people is morally wrong and that—what is morally wrong should no longer be legally permissible in Britain?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his questions. Indeed, we are all very grateful to him for the work that he has done over many years on behalf of disabled people. In answer to my noble friend's question about legislation, I am afraid that I am unable to give him a clear indication. As he will be well aware, the legislative programme for the next Session has not yet been decided and will not be decided for a little while yet.
As regards my noble friend's other question. perhaps I may remind him that about 50 per cent. of the members of the task force are in fact disabled people. Therefore, the task force is able to get direct answers in that respect from its members. As far as concerns the wider operation of the task force, I can tell my noble friend that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment with responsibility for equal opportunities, who is the chairman, has said that he wants it to work in an open manner. Therefore, the task force membership will use its existing networks to gather a wide range of views. The task force discussion papers and minutes are available on the Internet. A facility has been provided on the site for comments to be sent directly to the secretariat. Members of your Lordships' House who know how to access Internet sites can send in their views.
Lord Rix: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the parallel work of Mencap and the Learning Disability Coalition to that of the DDA task force—undertaken, incidentally, at the request of the Minister's department—will be given full consideration alongside that of the task force itself?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. The department and the task force are grateful for the help that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is giving to this work. Of course the views of Mencap and any associated organisations concerned with those who have particular problems will be taken fully into account.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister fully aware—and, if not, will she take note of the fact—that all parties in this House were very much in favour of the Disability Discrimination Act and that we continue to support the aims of that Act? Does she also agree that no matter how one legislates, it takes much longer to change attitudes and that is achieved only through good example? Is it a fact that the Civil Service is now making an effort to recruit more disabled people?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course it is terribly important that public sector employers,
4
including the Civil Service, should set a good example in this respect. I know that the new Government are making every effort to try to ensure that government departments play a full part in employing people with disabilities to set just the example that the noble Baroness would like to see.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a rumour that petrol prices may increase as a result of the Budget? Is she further aware that petrol prices are very important to disabled people? They will not be able to get to work if petrol prices go sky high. Will she undertake to draw this fact to the attention of the task force, and the particular difficulty for disabled people?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not aware of that rumour. The Treasury keeps its cards fairly close to its chest on these matters. Nor can I be absolutely sure that the task force will be able to influence the Treasury on this matter. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: it is enormously important for many disabled people, particularly those who are wheelchair bound, to be able to drive and to have access to reasonably cheap transport. I shall certainly pass on her concerns to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we must certainly welcome the progress which is being made, but is it not increasingly apparent that the Prime Minister has decided to tour the country spelling out his views on welfare reform but in many crucial areas such as this the Government are not yet clear what their policy is? In that context, will the Prime Minister hold any meetings which are open to the public rather than to Labour Party supporters?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little surprised by the tone of that question as I am absolutely clear that the Prime Minister wishes to consult widely on the programme for welfare reform. Of course he will want to hear the views of those with disabilities as considering benefits which relate to the disabled is part of that wider programme of reform.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if one is to make a change as regards the rights of disabled people one must take into account changes to the social security regulations which relate to the way the disabled are supported by the state? A back-to-work programme that does not take that into account is ultimately bound to fail.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course that is the case but the task force is not considering benefit reform. That is a matter for the Prime Minister's committee which is considering that matter with the Department of Social Security and others. The task force about which my noble friend has asked a Question today is concerned with civil rights for disabled people rather than with the specific issue of benefit reform, but of course the two have some relationship.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no better Minister to lead the task

5
force than Alan Howarth with his distinguished record? Is she also aware that some people have so-called unfashionable disabilities such as leprosy, mental illness or epilepsy, who are able but are not perceived to be so? Will she make sure that the task force pays special attention to the problems arising from these wrong perceptions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, that is exactly the kind of issue the task force will address. It is important that the views of all people with disabilities, whatever those may be, including the kind described by my noble friend, are taken into account and that their particular needs should be addressed.

Children's Radio Programmes
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Davidasked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the BBC's imminent removal of children's radio broadcasts, and the absence of children's programmes on commercial radio, why children's listening needs are not specifically protected in the BBC Charter and in the broadcasting Acts which govern the independent sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under its formal Agreement with the Government, the BBC is required to provide a high standard of original programmes for children and young people. Within this framework, however, decisions on editorial content and delivery of programmes are for the BBC itself. Presently there are no frequencies available to support a further analogue national commercial radio service. Given the very limited availability of frequencies for digital commercial radio, the Government do not wish to prescribe the nature of the services to be conveyed on them at this time.
Baroness David: My Lords, while that is not an entirely unexpected Answer it is nonetheless unsatisfactory. Does the Minister realise how strongly people feel about the ending of children's radio and how they resent the Secretary of State going back on his commitment at a meeting at the Labour Party conference to reserve,
"not just one but several digital audio channels for children and education"?
Surely, when the national curriculum is being changed to provide more time for English, thereby cutting down on history, art and music, it is counter-productive for the BBC to cut listening on radio when it helps so enormously with children's concentration, communication skills, language and movement, in particular if parents are listening with their children.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am well aware of the disappointment of my noble friend and many others. I was careful to respond that, although at present we do not wish to prescribe the nature of services to be conveyed on digital commercial radio because the number of services available is very limited,
6
there is a real prospect that in the future more services will be available and then the prospects of improved children's services will become very much more live.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not clear that today's generation of producers simply does not understand the role that children's imagination can play through the use of children's radio? I speak as a nephew of Aunt Elizabeth on "Children's Hour". Many listened to those programmes with unalloyed joy over many years; now there is nothing like them. Does the Minister not think that that is a great pity?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I respect the noble Lord's ancestral interest in children's radio and I share his personal experiences of it. One of the difficulties that many people find, if I may speak personally, is that it is difficult to get children to listen to radio when television programmes are available for them. I do not say that that is an argument against children's radio being made available.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are living in a completely different age from that described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin? Many of us enjoyed "Children's Hour". However, these days my grandchildren are more likely to work computers than listen to the radio. I find that sad, but they do not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that my previous answers were in that direction.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, were not the final remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady David, to the point? Children's broadcasting easily involves children with their parents. Although that may be a minority activity—many bright children work closely with their parents listening to sound radio programmes—the needs of the minority should not be sacrificed in the cause of supplying the needs of the majority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a valid and worthwhile point. The difficulty has been finding slots which would involve children, as well as children with their parents, in sufficient numbers to create an adequate audience.
Lord Annan: My Lords, has the Minister taken on board the criticism made of BBC children's programmes on television, which are becoming swamped with trash from the United States? Does he not think that it is extremely important that the views expressed in the House today should be conveyed to the Director-General and a request made that he should respond to those views and not treat them with contempt, as the BBC has done so often in the past?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that all the views expressed in the House today will be conveyed to the Director-General of the BBC as well as to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a frequency of 225 kilohertz is available? It is free and would allow a specialist programme for children and their parents to be broadcast from Glasgow, following which coverage could be extended gradually over the country. Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of support for the setting up of such a programme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of the degree of support for children's programming, whether in the form of a separate channel or through increased provision for children on existing channels. As regards the 225 kilohertz frequency, the problem has emerged that it conflicts with the broadcasting requirements of other European countries. Those countries have protested strongly at the use of 225 kilohertz for a national channel.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in responding to the BBC and the independent authorities, will the Minister take account of the significant criticism made by the Broadcasting Standards Commission in its report of November 1997 in relation to the domination of imported material in children's broadcasting? Will he take into account in particular the report published today by the European Broadcasting Union? It indicates, I understand, that the BBC's entire pre-school budget for the next two years will go into the Teletubbies? Does he agree that that is less a case of dumbing-down than dumbing-out?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not familiar with the second report to which the noble Lord refers. We shall take full cognizance of the first report, although I must repeat that it is a matter for the broadcasters rather than for government.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that considerable and necessary savings have been made in the BBC over the past 10 years? Would it not be prudent therefore to invest some of that money in the television and radio audiences of tomorrow instead of today, thereby widening choice, not restricting it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that any savings which have been made should be used for the future television and radio services, as the noble Lord rightly suggests.

Diplomatic Service: Foreign Language Skills
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking, now that the United Kingdom has 222 embassies and missions abroad, to improve the foreign language skills of personnel.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office runs a dedicated language training unit known as the Diplomatic Service Language Centre based at Cromwell House, which trains, according to changing demands, all Foreign Office and other government department personnel in the languages of the countries to which they are posted. Each embassy or mission abroad has personnel who have been trained to a high level in the local language and all other staff are given the opportunity to learn the language of the country to which they are posted. Staff based in London also receive training in the language skills needed to carry out their work.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, the answer to my Question is that 110 heads of mission speak the language of the country to which they are credited; that is, 50 per cent. Does the noble Lord agree that there is a growing need to invite and recruit those from minority ethnic communities to join the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as quickly as possible? Secondly, does he accept that there is a need to impose a moratorium on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Vote so that more money can be spent on language training? Does he further agree that there is a need for the Ministry of Defence to conduct an urgent review of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that the taxpayer receives value for money and our embassies are not a laughing-stock throughout the world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I really do have to take issue with the noble Earl on his final point. Many noble Lords in this House have borne witness in many circumstances to the efficiency, courtesy and effectiveness of our embassy staff.
To turn to the noble Earl's less lurid questions, I am very much in favour, as my noble friend Lady Symons has reported to this House on many occasions, of the idea of engaging more people from ethnic minorities and, in this context, people speaking some of the languages that are needed in our embassies abroad. However, there is a rapidly changing demand for languages in the Foreign Office. The noble Earl will be familiar, for example, with the fact that some embassies in the former Soviet Union have required a crash programme which is only now coming to fruition. I am not sure that looking at the Foreign Office Vote in the way that he suggested, or bringing in the Ministry of Defence, would improve the status or effectiveness of language teaching within the Foreign Office.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether the heads of mission in the former Soviet states of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Chechnya, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan can speak the local language?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was expecting that question on the Baltic States, therefore my briefing is not entirely up-to-date on central Asia. In each of those embassies in central Asia there will be at least one

9
member of staff who speaks the local language to a high level. I agree that it is not always either the ambassador or the head of mission.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the system of overseas postings, including the Department of Trade and Industry, allow for division and concentration in broad categories of languages to allow for real confidence to be developed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer is to some extent yes, in that there is an increasing build-up of language expertise in related languages. But in addition, postings and language training can be in entirely new areas. The traditional system of posting for the Foreign Office is still continuing in that respect.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, while the considerable foreign language teaching skills of BBC World Service reporters are informally used by our diplomatic personnel, will the Minister explore the possibility of a formal link, to ensure that that resource base is fully utilised, particularly in relation to some of the less commonly used languages that our World Service reporters employ as their native tongues? That approach was highly successfully followed, not least in Uzbekistan.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the position in relation to Uzbekistan. Certainly it would be our intention to make use of BBC talent where necessary. However, the main burden will rest on the Foreign Office's own training centre.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House, given that we now have to support well over 200 missions abroad, how far Her Majesty's Government are taking advantage of the possibilities of co-operation in any way in relation to staffing, buildings and security with other European Union member governments?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer is: at present to a very limited extent indeed.

Organophosphates: Manufacture and Sale
3.3 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the outcome of four recent court cases and new scientific evidence of the health effects of organophosphates, they will now implement an immediate moratorium on the manufacture and sale of organophosphorus compounds.
Lord Carter: My Lords, organophosphorus compounds remain effective medicinal products and pesticides when used properly. I am advised that the ill effects noted in the Hong Kong and Australian cases resulted from the use of organophosphates in a manner that is not authorised in this country. The Government
10
are advised on the use of organophosphates by expert scientific committees and the current advice is that there is no scientific justification for a moratorium on the manufacture and sale of these compounds. However, all new evidence is examined carefully. Any new advice from the expert scientific committees will be acted on immediately.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that what is crucial in relation to the four court cases is that at long last the fact of chronic ill health as a result of exposure to OPs has been found acceptable in the courts? It would appear that Her Majesty's Government do not accept that. Is the noble Lord further aware that work in Israel indicates that stress, whether from heat, emotion or physical activity, causes the blood vein barrier to break down and organophosphates and viruses to enter the brain? That is particularly applicable to sheep dipping. Is the noble Lord also aware that children are now being found to suffer from organophosphate poisoning to a much greater extent than was anticipated because they are particularly vulnerable? There is a lot of other epidemiological evidence which is now coming forward. Will the noble Lord ask his colleagues in another place urgently to reconsider their decision in relation organophosphates?
Lord Carter: My Lords, first, in relation to liability, we are advised that it is for an individual to take up the matter with the manufacturers of the sheep dip. It is significant that in the cases in Australia and Hong Kong, and also that involving Lancashire County Council, the action was between the individual and his employer.
As regards the exposure of children, the safety assessments carried out in relation to such products must take into account exposure of members of the public, including children. Such assessments are particularly important in relation to OP flea treatment for pets, since children come into close contact with treated animals.
On the question of a revision of the present position, as I said, the approach to the approval of pesticides and veterinary and human medicines is precautionary. The expert scientific committees review the data to ensure that the balance between risk and benefit is correctly drawn. Any new evidence will be taken into account.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Transport and General Workers' Union supported at least one of the cases referred to in the Question and there is great concern about the health and safety of workers, particularly those involved with sheep dipping? There is apparently evidence that the protective clothing does not adequately protect. Could there be consultation with the workers in the industry via their unions on the issues raised in the Question tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the case of the employee to which my noble friend refers was in fact settled out of court. I refer to the case of Mr. Rob Shepherd and Lancashire County Council. We therefore have no details as to the background to the settlement, and further comment would not be appropriate.

11
Regarding the use of the currently recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), we understand that it can be worn with comfort, and consultation with contractors has suggested that it is fit for the purpose. However, the Veterinary Products Committee has recommended that research should be carried out into the use of lighter, user friendly materials for the manufacture of PPE which would still protect dippers against exposure to OPs. The Health and Safety Executive is taking that work forward.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is a matter of some astonishment to many people that the government departments concerned should for so long have remained impervious to the arguments of the noble Countess? One understands why the noble Lord rather hurried through his answers, given to him as they were by experts. Would it be too much to hope that he might deliver a fairly powerful message to those experts that the answers he has been given are not wholly satisfactory?
Lord Carter: My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, I will speak very slowly. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, advice on the approval or review of OPs is provided by the Veterinary Products Committee, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Working Party on Pesticide Residues, the Pesticides Forum, the Health and Safety Executive and the Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel, to name but a few. It is not clear how much more advice we could actually seek.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord on his wisdom in choosing the words, "the current advice is". In the light of the past history of this subject, will he convey the warning inherent in those words to his advisers as well as to this House?
Lord Carter: Yes, of course, my Lords. As I have already said, any new evidence and advice will be taken into account.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will the Minister arrange for the publication of a list of pharmaceutical and agricultural products containing organophosphates so that the public can be reasonably aware of the dangers to which they are subjected?
Lord Carter: Yes, my Lords. A full list of all products is available through a number of publications. In the case of OPs, 13 evaluation documents are available; and there is full information on 80 or more pesticides, of which about 30 are OPs.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can the Minister answer a conundrum which occurs to many of us? Since he mentioned the word "precaution", and since the
12
ministry has banned beef on the bone as "a precaution'', why, with far better evidence, have OPs not been banned?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe I have already answered that question. The approach to the approval of pesticides and veterinary and human medicines is already precautionary. The expert scientific committee reviews data to ensure that the balance between risks and benefits is correctly drawn. At the moment the committee's view is that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea of a ban or a moratorium.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me particular pleasure to introduce the Second Reading debate of the Bill which will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam. With your Lordships' indulgence, I should perhaps explain that about three years ago my right honourable friend, now the Prime Minister, asked me to establish a committee chaired by him to consider the Labour Party's approach to the impending Amsterdam negotiations. I can modestly say that we were largely successful in establishing a united and coherent position in the Labour Party; I can certainly claim that we were more successful than were the then government.
In the event, the Labour Government took over on the eve of the final formal stages of negotiation. On day two of the Labour Government I accompanied my right honourable friend Robin Cook across the threshold of the Foreign Office for the first time in government to discuss with officials the state of play and how we should deal with negotiations. On the basis of that meeting my colleague Doug Henderson was able the following Monday to set out clearly the incoming Government's position for the benefit of our European partners, signifying to them a welcome, new, constructive but nevertheless clear and firm UK position as regards those negotiations. I do not claim too much for that preparation. There remained plenty of work for my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to do at Amsterdam, but I like to think that they were working on a sound basis. On 20th May I indicated to the House that I should be covering European questions. I have since then dealt with many European issues in your Lordships' House, but none has given me greater pride than the pride I feel in introducing this Bill.
The Bill comes to us after detailed scrutiny in another place. It was examined over a full five days in Committee; over 100 amendments were discussed there. The detailed attention which the Bill received is noteworthy, but we should also note the overwhelming majority by which the Bill was passed there.
The treaty has also received the attention of your Lordships' House. I replied to a full and stimulating debate on the subject on 28th July, in which many noble

13
Lords made very effective speeches. Your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities produced a comprehensive report on the outcome of the intergovernmental conference. That was followed on 31st July by a detailed report from the Select Committee on the enhancement arrangements for scrutiny of the so-called third pillar. Since then the committee has also taken evidence from my colleague, Doug Henderson, Minister for Europe. I am therefore keenly aware that this is a treaty with which many noble Lords are already familiar and in which there is a great deal of interest in this House, as evidenced by the large number of noble Lords who have expressed a wish to speak today.
I should like to take the opportunity of Second Reading to set the treaty in the wider context of the new Government's approach to Britain's role in the European Union. In May last year the new Labour Government said that they saw the European Union as an opportunity. not a threat. For too long the United Kingdom had lost influence in Europe. This Government are clear that the best interests of the country lie in a full, positive and constructive engagement with our European partners.
At Amsterdam my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary showed their great commitment and negotiating skill, which was much respected by their fellow leaders. They also showed that the new Labour Government could do business in Europe, to the benefit of both British interests and the European Union as a whole.
In the Committee stage in another place the Opposition asserted that some aspects of the treaty represented a threat to the interests of this country. I have no doubt that we shall hear that again today. However, I do not believe that the assertion will stand up to serious examination in this House. I have followed closely the debate on the treaty. It has been called many things, some of them complimentary, many of them rather less so, but the description which has been used more often than any is that it is a "modest" treaty. I am struck by that description, but I think a more appropriate one would be that it is a "consolidating" treaty.
It is true that in many respects the treaty is more modest than its two most recent predecessors, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. It lacks the dominant, eye-catching, overarching themes of the single market and the single currency. But in many respects these comparisons are misplaced. We should not start from the assumption that every European treaty must necessarily involve a great leap forward. Indeed, the consolidating nature of this treaty catches very well the mood of public opinion, both within this country and the European Union as a whole. The peoples of Europe were not looking for grandiose new constructs or visionary new projects. In so far as they understood the process at all, they were looking for a sensible rationalisation to increase the efficiency and democracy of European institutions, to make them more understandable and in touch with the citizens of Europe and to provide a basis on which we can move forward to tackle the challenges of the next century.
14
Amsterdam represented not only a consolidation but also an end to what I call "institutionitis", the obsession with institutions which affects Eurocrats, politicians and commentators alike. I hope that we can now move on to deal with the issues which concern our citizens—jobs, environment, crime and human rights—and to concentrate on the historic task which we are now beginning with the UK presidency of the European Union: the successful launch of a European currency: and enlargement—the reunification of Europe after the bitter divisions of the Cold War.
For Britain, Amsterdam also represents the normalisation of our relationship with our partners in Europe and the beginning of constructive engagement. For Europe as a whole the treaty substantially, though not entirely, provides the basis on which we can start that process of enlargement. Under the British presidency we shall launch the European conference on 12th March and the enlargement negotiations at the end of next month, a process which will consolidate peace, democracy and security in a wider Europe. It is an historic opportunity and an obligation which we shall fulfil.
That is the context. I hope that in this debate we can also discuss the detail of the treaty on its merits. Looking at the list of speakers, I recognise that it may be a forlorn plea, but I hope we can do so without starting from the assumption that every provision, no matter how minor or benign, and no matter what its evident advantages, must somehow contain some snare simply because it is in a European treaty, supposedly thrust on us by Brussels and a conspiracy of foreigners.
I am the first to recognise that the Treaty of Amsterdam is not a perfect text in every way. I do not wish to grind your Lordships down with a detailed presentation on every sub-paragraph, though I am confident that much of the detail of the treaty will receive proper and full attention in later stages in this House. However, I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention in broader terms some of the practical advantages which the treaty represents for both Britain and Europe. I hope to show that the changes are neither quite as modest as some suggest nor as dangerous as some claim.
First, the treaty begins to address the concerns of the citizens of Europe—for example, the widespread concern about crime. In the field of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, the treaty sets out clear objectives for the Union and makes available to the Council new instruments which will improve decision-making and effective co-operation. International criminals—the drug barons and international terrorists—are increasingly agile in pursuing their nefarious trade across international borders. The Union must develop the means to combat them. The treaty marks a step forward in this respect.
The treaty also introduces new provisions on openness and transparency in the Union so that the interested citizen can find out what is being done in his name. It has long been a valid criticism in this House and elsewhere that Europe operates with too much secrecy. Amsterdam begins to set that balance right.

15
There are also improvements which address citizens' concerns—the environmental dimension, consumer protection and anti-fraud provisions. They offer important and significant steps towards addressing, genuine, popular concerns throughout the Union and should be welcomed in this House.
Secondly, the treaty reinforces the rights of the citizen in Europe. For example, it introduces a new legal basis for the Council to adopt anti-discrimination measures, and we support that. It is a welcome provision, but one which has already been misunderstood in this House. Let me explain therefore that the article does not have direct effect; it provides a legal basis for future action by the Council at European level.
The United Kingdom is relatively fortunate to have quite a good story to tell in respect of our anti-discrimination legislation; not all member states are in such a strong position. If we wish to raise standards, not least so that our citizens—particularly those from ethnic minorities—can enjoy the same levels of protection when they travel, work and study in Europe as they do here, we will need legislation at European level. I add however that Article 6a is subject to the important safeguard of unanimous decision making, so that we will be able to shape and influence legislation in a way which is sensitive to our national circumstances.
The treaty also strengthens the human rights provisions. Here again there has been a good deal of scare-mongering. Some have seen and profess to see it as a covert threat to the United Kingdom; that is, that the Council may adopt sanctions against the United Kingdom because it was deemed to be in serious and persistent violation of human rights. That is an improbable scenario to say the least. I can state categorically that as long as this Government are in power—I believe that the same would apply to all parties represented in this House and this Parliament—the United Kingdom will not be in breach of fundamental human rights and it is inconceivable that the 14 other member states would deem us to be so.
Thirdly, in relation to one of the other major concerns of citizens—jobs and working life—I am proud to say that the treaty fulfils the long-standing commitment of the Labour Party to end the damaging opt-out of the social chapter. It will allow British workers to enjoy the same rights and protection in the workplace as their continental counterparts. A lot of nonsense has been talked about the social chapter and I do not aspire to convince the Opposition of the error of their ways today. I know that the social opt-out provided perhaps a convenient and desperate last rallying point for the Conservative Party to try to unite around in opposition to the treaty as a whole. But they failed to provide any evidence that the social chapter will somehow put at risk hundreds of thousands of British jobs.
We set out in our manifesto the objective of incorporation of the social chapter. In that election the vast majority of the British public agreed with us.
16
Similarly, the inclusion of the new employment chapter is also a significant gain. The treaty states that the co-ordinated strategy for employment which it envisages should focus on,
"promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and labour markets responsive to economic change".
There again we see British wording and British priorities reflected on the European stage, and that is welcome.
This Government do not believe that there is any contradiction between modernising labour markets and providing decent minimum standards for workers, or indeed respecting the position of the trade unions as social partners; quite the reverse. Modernisation requires the active involvement of workers and the constructive engagement of trade unions at all levels. The social chapter and the employment chapter reflect that.
Fourthly, on a different level, we have strengthened the mechanisms and procedures of the common foreign and security policy, building on the Maastricht Treaty. The importance and necessity of that was stressed by speaker after speaker in the debate in this House a few days ago introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. Amsterdam also clarifies the security provisions of the treaty. It underlines the primacy of NATO as the cornerstone of the European allies' defence. Again, I hope that that can be welcomed across this House.
It has been alleged that the treaty concedes the principles of the integration of the Western European Union into the European Union and thereby turns the EU into a military organisation. That is categorically not the case. It is undeniably true that some of our partners would wish it were so. Those aspirations were advanced at Maastricht and again at Amsterdam. But at our instigation and at our insistence the Amsterdam treaty makes it quite explicit that the integration of the WEU into the European Union could only take place if the European Council so decided, by unanimity, and subject also to the ratification of each member state—another welcome safeguard and a welcome clarification.
The positive closer relationship between the EU and the WEU reflected in the treaty will help to deal with the problems of crisis reaction—the so called Petersberg tasks—where European co-ordination is so vital and has rather too frequently been sadly lacking.
Fifthly, I turn to the vexed problem of border controls. The treaty provides, for the first time, explicit and incontrovertible legal security for this country to maintain its system of border controls. We achieved that in the context of a solution which also recognises the legitimate aspirations of our continental partners with different geographical circumstances and different forms of administration to operate collectively a different system. I know that there are those who claimed that the Conservative government had already negotiated that. But, frankly, we found no trace of any such agreements in the various drafts of the treaty we inherited. It was part of the package negotiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the summit itself. That is set out in a

17
protocol to the treaty which, as your Lordships know, carries the same legal force as the treaty itself. I hope it will be welcomed by all Members of this House.
Let me now turn to the institutional provisions of the treaty. I do not intend to dwell unduly on those provisions. I recognise that neither the official Opposition nor the Euro-sceptic tendency will agree with us on some of these issues. For instance, this Government see real advantages in a sensible extension of qualified majority voting. An extension of majority voting removes the ability of one country to block measures which may be in the interest of this country and the Union as a whole; for example, in the fight against fraud.
The Government accept also that the question of extending majority voting raises important questions of accountability. We therefore make no apology whatever about our support—indeed our strong advocacy—for the treaty's extension of the powers of the European Parliament, a co-decision with the Council. That is important in terms of democratic legitimacy and we believe that the changes in the powers of the European Parliament are welcome. They represent an advance in democracy and accountability of all the European institutions.
On the agenda for Amsterdam were also other questions of reform of the institutions—of the Commission and of the re-weighting of votes in the Council. In that area I am markedly upbeat. As I said in the July debate, I regret the fact that Amsterdam did not make as much progress in those areas as we would have liked. We did not reach final agreement. But at least we secured a firm commitment to address those questions in good time for the enlargement process.
Finally, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the treaty also contains a new protocol on the role of national parliaments. I am pleased to pay tribute once again to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and his committee who have long sought for a longer period of scrutiny by national parliaments of European legislation. We now have a minimum six-week period for consultation. That is an important improvement, but we also intend to ensure that it is respected.
Your Lordships will know that this Government are committed to more effective, more comprehensive scrutiny here at Westminster of European legislation. My right honourable friend the President of the Council submitted a memorandum to the modernisation committee in another place setting out the Government's proposals. The Government look forward to taking those matters further in consultation with both Houses. In particular, we would welcome the contribution of your Lordships' Select Committee in that process.
The treaty of Amsterdam may well have been described as modest. However, I hope that I have shown some of the important achievements which it represents for this country and for Europe. At Amsterdam we achieved explicit legal security for our border controls and protected our essential interests on immigration, asylum and visa policies; we agreed a limited extension of qualified majority voting in those areas where it will be in our interests while maintaining at the same time
18
unanimity in key areas; we agreed measures which will improve the effectiveness of the common foreign and security policy; and, above all, we endorsed a new focus for the institutions of the Union on issues which really concern the citizens of Europe—on employment, on social policy, on the environment, on combating discrimination and on fighting fraud.
This may not be the stuff of heroic deeds and high oratory. The treaty is neither the looming menace portrayed by the Euro-sceptics nor is it the triumph of the European ideal envisaged by some Euro-fanatics. It is a practical consolidating treaty on the basis of which we can now move forward. Perhaps I may pick up the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who I do not think is in his place today, in the July debate on the treaty. He said:
"we are approaching this topic now with objectives that are a lot less grand than we had at one time, and with language a lot less high-flown. But the alarms and hazards are rather less menacing as well. That is not to underrate the process. The opportunities. the challenges and the potential still remain of urgent practical importance to this country".—[Official Report, 28/7/97: col. 37.]
Those, I submit, are exactly the right terms in which to describe this treaty. On that, I am in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Whitty.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, today we start the process of assessing the action which the Government took on behalf of the British people in Amsterdam last June and judging whether the Government's rhetoric of success after the summit is in proportion to what was negotiated at it. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as a Government Whip, has won widespread respect in this House for his command of many subjects for which he has responsibility. He has now added well honed Foreign Office rhetoric to his armoury. I know that he will accept our congratulations on his opening speech as genuine and that he will not regard the widespread concern throughout the House that no Foreign Office Minister is at the Dispatch Box today as being in any way a personal attack on his ability. It is not.
However, I have to say that the decision made by the Foreign Secretary that this far-reaching constitutional legislation does not warrant Foreign Office ministerial accountability is a discourtesy to the House. It is the only Foreign Office legislation to come before the House during this lengthy first Session but apparently it is insufficient to warrant Foreign Office ministerial accountability here. This constitutional legislation is of such magnitude that it warrants a nationwide referendum in Denmark and consumes the time of the constitutional court in Germany. But it is not important enough to trouble our Foreign Office Ministers. The Government claim to be putting the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe. They currently hold the key role as president of the European Union. How on earth will our European colleagues judge the Prime Minister and the Government when they see Robin Cook seeking the introduction of the legislation

19
into the Upper House without deeming it important enough to warrant the presence of a Foreign Office Minister, either during Second Reading or at the Committee stage?
These words are spoken more in sorrow than in anger. They obviously cause some amusement to colleagues elsewhere in the House. I say to them that when they look around the House and see the quality of many fine former ambassadors, former Foreign Secretaries and experts in foreign affairs in a House which has become a focal point, not for laughter but for detailed consideration and revision of European policy, they should then contrast the reputation we have long held internationally with today's Foreign Office decision not to ensure that the ministry is accountable to the House on matters of far reaching constitutional importance.
However, irrespective of how strongly my colleagues and I may feel about the Government's treatment of your Lordships' House today, it is my duty to impress upon the House the failings of this measure. I can assure the House that they are as great as the cursory treatment to which we have been subjected. This is no simple consolidating treaty. As a result, it is my intention during the progress of the Bill to examine in a constructive and measured way a treaty which is seriously flawed; to scrutinise the details contained within the legislation; to question the Minister, when, as I sincerely hope, she comes to the House; and to explore fully the effects of the Bill's provisions and the implications of the transfer of power which the treaty provides.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I find his statement quite astonishing. On the one hand, he has complimented my noble friend Lord Whitty on his exceptional ability in opening the debate and on the experience that he has demonstrated before the House over the past few months. On the other hand, he is criticising my Front Bench for putting my noble friend forward as a speaker in introducing the debate. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. If he acknowledges the quality of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I think he should acknowledge that we have put forward our best player in the debate.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. He makes an extremely good point. If it is the view of the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is the best person for the job, I would advise him to write to the Prime Minister and ask him immediately to give the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the job. The noble Lord would do an admirable job. Everything I have said about the outstanding contribution to the House of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stands. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, agrees.
However, the point I have made and will make again is that it is for a Foreign Office Minister to come before the House when we have before us a matter of major constitutional importance. As I will show to the noble Lord, and to other noble Lords, the Amsterdam treaty is full of issues of major constitutional importance that
20
warrant detailed consideration by each and every one of your Lordships. To proceed without a Foreign Office Minister on the Government Front Bench is an appalling reflection on the importance the Government attach to a measure which is of major constitutional importance both to your Lordships' House and to the people of this country.
I have argued that the Amsterdam treaty is important and has constitutional implications not least for our relationship with Europe and the prospective new members of the European Union. I take this opportunity to repeat that, setting aside those areas where we are in genuine disagreement—the effects of the social chapter and of the employment chapter—there are certainly broad areas of consensus between the Government and the Opposition on the treaty. We agree in principle on the legally-guaranteed retention of sovereignty over our border controls; the rejection of a merger between the European Union and the Western European Union; the protocol to entrench subsidiarity; and the rejection of proposals to give the European Union an explicit legal personality.
Yet we are told that at Amsterdam the Government delivered where they said they would deliver. We are told, too, that the negotiations at Amsterdam provided the concrete proof that the Government have "transformed Britain's relations with our European partners" and that "Britain is now respected as a constructive partner with which the other countries of Europe can do business". We shall be looking at the truth of those statements in reference to enlargement, vote weighting reforms and the size of the Commission, the opt-in to the Schengen Acquis, the Government's deal on quota hopping and the scope of the extension of powers to the European Court of Justice.
Chapter by chapter, article by article, paragraph by paragraph, we will be judging the treaty, and, by implication the Government and their negotiating skills, on a series of key tests. Does it benefit Britain's competitiveness and jobs? Does it protect and enhance British interests? Does it achieve what it set out to do? In sum, is it really the best deal the Government could get for Britain? Or did the Government in fact give up a good deal?
Where better to begin this examination of the treaty and the Government's negotiating ability than with the challenge of enlargement and the consequences of the treaty for the people of central and eastern Europe? If Amsterdam had a raison d'être, an idea behind it, a purpose to achieve, it was the acknowledgement that Europe does not end at the Elbe and that institutional changes and reforms are necessary to pave the way for enlargement. It has been said many times before, but it is nonetheless true, that enlargement is the historic challenge of our generation. We have an opportunity to heal the divisions which have scarred our continent. But the fulfilment of this powerful mission for the future—and it is a mission—carries weighty budgetary, political and social implications. The present Union, its institutions and mechanisms, were designed nearly half a century ago for six states and no one expects those to serve effectively the Europe of the 21st century in all its diversity.

21
Before enlargement can take place, therefore, difficult issues must be addressed and difficult decisions made on reform of the common agricultural policy; on reform of the structural and cohesion funds, without which we will bankrupt the Community budget; and on the size of the Commission and the re-weighting of votes in Council without which smaller member states will have power disproportionate to their populations to out-vote the larger members.
In opposition the Government said that they were "strongly committed" to the enlargement of the European Union which had "a crucial role to play in consolidating democracy and economic reform in central and eastern Europe". Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, said that,
"the main concern of [the' British presidency will be to get negotiations on the enlargement of Europe off to a flying start".— [Official Report, Commons, 9/6/97; col. 806.]
The Minister of State said that it was,
"a top priority for the future direction of Europe that enlargement of the European Union takes place at the earliest possible (opportunity]'. —[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/97, col. 1000.]
Fine rhetoric, but how is it reflected in the treaty text? How did the Government ensure that Amsterdam was used to refashion the European Union to enable us to rebuild Europe'? How does the treaty make the EU's institutions appropriate to an enlarged Community? The answers are that the Government failed to achieve any of these objectives and, regrettably, failed miserably. The Foreign Secretary stated,
"I believe we can look forward with confidence to obtaining more votes for Britain and the larger countries from the Amsterdam summit. Enlargement could create the perverse outcome of the three largest nations, with a majority of the population of Europe, not having a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers. We have every reason to believe that we shall emerge from Amsterdam with an agreement that will give Britain greater weight in the Council of Ministers".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/97; col. 806.]
Yet he did not. For, fresh from these negotiations, the Prime Minister was forced to admit that,
"not as much progress was made as there might have been-.— [Official Report, Commons, 18/6/97; col. 314.1
So exactly what progress did take place on weighting of individual member votes in weighted majority voting? Why, when, prior to the summit, the Foreign Secretary was so confident that he would return with the key institutional reforms necessary for enlargement, does Article 1 of the Protocol simply restate the requirement, apparent since the last enlargement took place in 1995, to re-weight votes in the Council and to adjust the present number of Commissioners? And why—potentially damagingly to Britain—does it also contain a commitment to give up our second Commissioner? This is a commitment, contained in a legally binding protocol, upon which others may rely in the Court of Justice.
Britain's position had always before been that we would agree to give up our second Commissioner provided we were compensated through vote re-weighting. Now, sadly, the loss of our second Commissioner by 2003 is not to be compensated by a watertight, legal guarantee to re-weight the votes in Council. One need only consult the Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum to the Foreign
22
Affairs Committee, which does not inspire confidence on the point. So the Government have come to the House today with a situation where we are legally bound to give up our second Commissioner in a treaty which only envisages a satisfactory vote re-weighting formula.
It is clear that the European Union cannot afford to enlarge as it stands at present, financially or administratively. This was where the treaty is most visibly and shamefully lacking and where the Government have committed their greatest sin of omission. As the treaty stands, the Government allowed the most important and most difficult decision to be postponed. It put off for tomorrow what it should have done today. I would like to know why this was and whether the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will stand by his explanation for the failure given to me in your Lordships' House in July. He said,
"We failed on the institutional side to agree the size of the Commission or the reweighting of votes. But we came close to agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me why. One slightly flip answer is to say that we did not reach that item until four o'clock in the morning. It may be that the heads of government of other states were not quite as alert at that point as my honourable friend the Prime Minister".—[Official Report, 28/7/97; col. 72.]
The noble Lord may see nothing inappropriate in giving a flip answer to such a question. But I wonder whether the peoples of central and eastern Europe share the joke. However, as I turn to examine the Government's negotiations on our opt-in to the Schengen Acquis the noble Lord's explanation for the Government's failure on enlargement seems to be a case of many a true work spoken in jest.
For certainly the early hours of the morning do appear to be a particularly low point for the Government's ability to negotiate, as is amply demonstrated by the negligent negotiation over the Schengen Acquis. This agreement will move those countries who have chosen to participate in it towards a European Union without common border controls.
The Opposition welcomed the Government's seamless transition of policy in retaining sovereignty over Britain's border controls through the legal, binding protocol to the treaty, although I must add that our support is not surprising in the light of the agreement reached in March when a complete British opt-out on border controls was first agreed in principle. The Government are absolutely right to proclaim that as a major achievement, which is exactly what it was—a Major achievement with a capital M‡
When we come to the Committee stage we shall be seeking clarification on the issue of Article 4 of the protocol integrating the Schengen Acquis into the framework of the European Union. It is my understanding that as result of negligence on the part of the Foreign Secretary, a late amendment by the Spanish Prime Minister was accepted into the treaty by default in the early hours of the morning of 18th June meaning that any member state, including Spain, would have a veto over future opt-ins to the Schengen Acquis which will be decided now by unanimity rather than by qualified majority voting. This potentially hands the Spanish a powerful bargaining chip with which to exact concession over Gibraltar. I would like to repeat the

23
question of the noble Lord's colleague, the Labour Member for Wrexham, to the Foreign Secretary. He wanted to know whether that had simply happened because Her Majesty's Government do not care about Gibraltar and give it a low priority or,
"was it just a Government cock up?" —[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/97; col. 754.]
The Dutch Government, unsurprisingly, have clearly been concerned that we have had four different explanations for this failure to negotiate in another House. Clearly concerned by these extraordinary allegations of the behaviour of two member states, they wrote to the British Government as long ago as 16th July. Given the Government's commitment to open government and transparency, will the Government give the House an assurance that that letter will be published?
But there will be those among your Lordships who will be far more concerned about the reforms to the appointment of the President of the Commission and of the new Commissioners from member states, where a reasonable explanation might well be that the negotiations again took place too early in the morning. It would seem to me genuinely to be the only explanation for what has happened in the treaty text.
Of all the changes agreed by the Government in Amsterdam these reforms have potentially the most long-term significance for the people of Britain. The treaty gives away important national powers by diminishing the freedom of member states to appoint the Commissioners of their choice. In future, the European Parliament will have to approve the new President of the Commission and the President of the Commission has been given new powers to veto the appointment of new Commissioners and can therefore effectively pick the other 19 Commissioners. Do the Government agree that these changes take far-reaching power away from democratically-elected governments, who are accountable to the people of their countries, and place it in the hands of an unelected official? Why did the Government agree that the President of the Commission should have the power to veto Commissioners chosen by member states? What was the possible justification for the change?
The Minister of State in another place said on 15th January at col. 544 of Hansard,
"The changes are very much in Britain's interests".
Do the Government think that it is in our national interest that no President of the European Commission can be appointed unless the European Parliament agrees? Do the Government think that it is in our national interest that we in the United Kingdom can no longer be guaranteed the right to chose our own Commissioner? Do the Government think that it is in our national interest that the Commission must in future work under the "political guidance" of its President and that the President now has the power to hire and fire? Yes,
"The Commission shall work under the political guidance of its President".
The word "political" is inserted for the first time under Article 2, paragraph 41 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Does the Minister think that it is in our national interest
24
that the balance of power has shifted from intergovernmental control towards a political Commission led by a political President?
This is no simple consolidating treaty. It is a major constitutional issue which, on the points I have already raised and put before your Lordships' House, requires detailed consideration and lengthy and detailed answers. I just do not know the justification for that fundamental shift in the nature of the Commission. The Minister of State justified the powers to the European Parliament, saying that,
"as Members of the European Parliament come from the same countries and political parties as Council members. I do not think that their views will be very much out of line with the majority Council view. The fear is therefore unrealistic".
Given that faith in MEPs—if they have such faith in their MEPs to reflect their line—why did the Government disgracefully, undemocratically and repeatedly try to gag their own MEPs when they expressed a socialist agenda?
If the Minister cannot,
"foresee a situation in which the European Parliament would reject someone as President if the Council had agreed on who he or she should be",
what was the reason for enshrining in treaty form the provision to allow the European Parliament to set aside the unanimous views of member states? The Minister of State justified the shift to a political Commission because,
"some commissioners do not always take the Commission … view … and grind their own axe. Some Commissioners have a view of their own and go off on their own track".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/98; col. 544.]
We know that the Government disapprove—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I am trying hard to follow him. I do not recall the exact clause in the original Treaty of Rome of 1958 which said that Commissioners should take no instructions from national governments. We have just had a row about a French Commissioner who wished to behave in a rather more intergovernmental way. I cannot see where the Treaty of Amsterdam changes what was in the original Treaty of Rome about the Commission in the way the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, although I welcome that intervention, there are significant changes in this treaty, not least under Article 2, paragraph 41. That is the first use of the word "political" in terms of direct guidance from the President to the Commission. I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening because we shall have an opportunity to look into this and all related issues in depth in Committee. The noble Lord has highlighted a vitally important issue, which is the concern that can exist when political direction is given. The noble Lord quoted one example. I suggest to your Lordships that we shall see many more such examples as a result of the drafting of this new part of the Amsterdam treaty which has serious constitutional implications for both this House and future governments.

25
It would be easy for me to spend a similar amount of time assessing the really important issues such as, for example, quota hopping on which the Prime Minister claimed a tremendous result for the Government—a result which the president of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations regarded as a "hopelessly inadequate fudge". We shall need to look in detail also at the reforms of the European Court of Justice. In Committee we shall need to consider the complex area of flexibility.
We shall also need to look at the far-reaching social and employment implications of both of those chapters. That is an area where the Opposition accept that the Government have not been negligent, but rather, deeply misguided, for we are in genuine disagreement on both the social and employment chapters. Over the past 20 years the United States has created 36 million new jobs, of which 31 million are in the private sector. Over the same period, only 8 million jobs have been created in the European Union, with no increase in private sector employment. Unless Europe cuts its social costs and frees up its labour markets, it will be outpriced and outperformed by the rest of the world, ensuring that unacceptable levels of employment will persist. Red tape and regulation are a regime that Europe can no longer afford to keep in place.
On those and many other issues I hope that I have demonstrated to colleagues, even if they disagree with some of my arguments, that this legislation is vital to our national interest. It is also vital to the opportunity to forge a stronger Europe. It is simply a tragedy that the Government do not share the priority that we attach to this measure. That is why it is ultimately not only a discourtesy, but also a snub, to this House as well as to our European aspirations that the Government deem it unnecessary to be accountable for their actions through the presence of a Foreign Office Minister.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Lord Beloff)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): The Question is, That this debate be now adjourned.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my reasons for moving such a Motion have, to some extent, already been expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is the opinion of many noble Lords that this is a matter of great constitutional importance and that there are precedents which show that, whenever a matter of constitutional importance is before your Lordships' House, the Bill is piloted on Second Reading and, even more importantly, in its later stages by a Minister from the department concerned. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, this is no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He is obviously well acquainted with these matters even though he
26
informed us that he approached the whole issue of Europe rather from a party background than from immersion in public contacts with our friends and allies.
The fact that this Bill is of constitutional importance hardly needs demonstrating by reference to its own clauses. In another place, it was taken through all its stages by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Clearly, they thought that it was a matter of such constitutional importance that, in spite of their many other commitments, often airborne, they would have to devote the necessary time to dealing with it.
Therefore, one is driven to the belief—regretfully, in my case—that it is not that the Government dispute that this is a constitutional measure but that they dispute that the arguments which apply in another place to the handling of constitutional measures apply to this House. They mean to illustrate, if one can put it rather strongly, their reservations about the ability of this House to deal with serious constitutional and foreign policy issues. One might think, looking around your Lordships' House not only today but also on previous occasions when we have discussed Europe, that the experience of European institutions in this House is at least as great as that in another place—and some, perhaps vauntingly, would say that it is considerably greater.
One is bound to ask what has possessed the Government to believe that this of all issues is one on which they can afford to ignore the traditional way of handling the business of your Lordships' House. I believe that this view is widely shared—it is not my own particularly—both by those who are dedicated to the cause of European integration, like the noble Baroness who is about to speak, and those who may he described in the language of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as Eurosceptics. All of us agree, some with pleasure and some with apprehension, that it is important and if it is important it is right that a Minister should deal with the later stages of the Bill. I hope that during the short debate that follows we shall get an undertaking to that effect.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and some learning to the words of the very experienced noble Lord opposite who has moved that this debate be now adjourned. In the short six years that I have been here and observed both parties in government I have been conscious of the fact that there are shortcomings in relation to the ministerial complement that forms the Front Bench of whichever party is in power. When one compares the other place with this House it is obvious that one is not comparing like with like. In the field of foreign affairs in the other place there are four or five Foreign Office Ministers, all of whom could have dealt with this Bill in all its stages in another place.
I believe that one of the great weaknesses of your Lordships' House is that, whichever party is in government, there is always only one person with ministerial responsibility for each department. There must come a time when the responsible Minister is physically not available to be present in your Lordships' House to deal with the particular legislation that is before us for consideration. I respectfully suggest that

27
when reform of your Lordships' House is being considered, not only the membership but the structure of your Lordships' House should be examined so that we do not find ourselves in this position of discussing across the Floor of your Lordships' House why the Foreign Office Minister that most of your Lordships would have expected to be present is not here to deal with the Second Reading of a Bill.
It has been my understanding since coming to your Lordships' House, rightly or wrongly—I am coming to the conclusion that it is "wrongly"—that designated Whips are second in line to the Minister responsible for particular departments. No one, but no one, in your Lordships' House today can gainsay that my noble friend Lord Whitty has made an outstanding contribution to this debate. I know that the noble Lord opposite in no way denigrates the contribution that has been made by my noble friend. That is said within these four walls, but that is not how it will be seen outside.
In conclusion, I appeal to your Lordships to allow the debate to continue but also to allow the lesson to be learned.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made two interesting and useful points which have underlined exactly what my noble friend Lord Beloff has said. First, the noble Lord said that there were at least four junior Foreign Office Ministers in the other place. If this was a Bill of such little constitutional importance, why was it that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary chose to take part of the burden of carrying the Bill through the other place when there were all those other Ministers who might have done it? Secondly, the noble Lord pointed out that there was but one Foreign Office Minister in your Lordships' House, but he had already made the point that there were four junior Foreign Office Ministers in the other place. That there is only one Foreign Office Minister in your Lordships' House is not a choice of this House; it is the choice of Her Majesty's Government that the Foreign Office is under-represented in this House.
I believe that what my noble friend has said is very much to the point. He is quite correct. It would be a remarkably good thing if this House put its collective foot down and asked that a Foreign Office Minister be here to deal with this Bill. It is no good all of us observing, quite rightly, how well the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, read his brief and took on the role. Of course he did. We all respect him. He knows full well how well I respect him personally. In the past he and I have had many matters in common. Indeed, we have in the past shared some duties across the political divide. We understand each other quite well. But the point is that he is not a Minister in the department concerned and therefore has no direct responsibility for that
28
department. My noble friend Lord Beloff is right. I think that the best thing we can do is to get on with the Division and decide the issue.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can noble Lords opposite inform the House what the Foreign Office Minister is doing as opposed to coming to this House?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister is getting ready for a debate in your Lordships' House tomorrow. Your Lordships have agreed that tomorrow there should be a debate on Iraq. She is dealing with the affairs of Iraq today, and tomorrow she will no doubt tell the House what must be said about the affairs of Iraq.
I regret that I missed the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I was in a meeting when someone suddenly burst in to tell me that the noble Lord had moved the adjournment of the House. I should have liked to be here to hear the whole of his speech, but I believe that I got the gist of it. I assume that it was much the same point as was made by other speakers on the other side.
It is said that somehow or other this debate is diminished by the fact that the person who is handling it for the Government is my noble friend Lord Whitty rather than "a Foreign Office Minister". With great respect to the Opposition, they cannot get away with that. Those who take that view can wrap it up in all kinds of constitutional terms and play parliamentary games as much as they like, but let us have no illusions about what is going on here. No attack is made on the competence of my noble friend, as I understand it. First, it is agreed that he knows his subject. Secondly, it is agreed that he can speak for the Government because he is a Member of the Government. Thirdly, my noble friend has dealt with Europe for a number of years. Fourthly, I remind the Opposition that it was pointed out to them at the beginning of this Government's life that my noble friend Lord Whitty would be speaking on European affairs in this House. I did not hear any objection to that at the time.
I am bound to consider the way in which the Opposition used their Whips when on this side of the House. They complain about my noble friend Lord Whitty, but I said very little about the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I am very fond of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. She is a great lady. I have listened to her with enjoyment and respect. When she gets up she commands the attention of the House. Certainly everyone agrees with that. The idea that somehow that was all right but that this is wrong is not an argument that carries much weight.
The Prime Minister was not involved in the Bill in the other place. The Foreign Secretary opened it on Second Reading but took no part in Committee or on Third Reading. He did, however, move the guillotine Motion, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will accept that as the position.
I entirely agree that this is an important Bill. It is right that the "Minister" in the Foreign Office who deals with Europe in probably a more intimate way than any other of the Foreign Office Ministers—namely, my noble

29
friend—is the person most fitted to deal with this in this House. That is the view that the Government continue to hold. There is nothing constitutionally wrong in it; there is nothing wrong in it in terms of the personality or competence of the Minister doing the job. With great respect, this is taking parliamentary games a little too far.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, surely the noble Lord will accept that he has misunderstood the matter. He has got it wrong. I speak for myself, but it is not a question, as I see it, of diminishing the debate; it is a question of the proprieties, government responsibility and the way in which the House should be treated. That is how I understand this.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I do not know how he can say that it does not concern my noble friend's capacity or confidence, when the whole attack from the other side is that he is not a person who is in a position to deal with the Bill. I am sorry, perhaps I am being dense this afternoon, but I do not understand it. The argument coming from the other side, as I understand it, is that somehow or another my noble friend is not the person who should be dealing with the Bill—although he is the person who should be dealing with the Bill because of his competence and his knowledge—because there is some constitutional objection to his doing so. There is no constitutional objection to his doing so.
Whips have been used for this purpose in this House by successive governments. They were used during the five years that I sat over there and the noble Viscount sat here.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will accept that the whole House has learnt to admire the skill and competence of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, during his so far brief period with us. I have confidence that the distinction that he has earned in your Lordships' House during his brief period will only be added to during the rest of his career here. It has been very much helped, as so often in your Lordships' House, by the feeling—if I may put it this way—of increasing affection in which the noble Lord is held. The noble Lord the Leader of the House is right when he sustains the proposition—a proposition with which we all agree—that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is an ornament to the Government Front Bench, and long may he remain so.
With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, that is not the point to which my noble friends are addressing themselves. Perhaps I may take the noble Lord on a little trip down memory lane, because he was kind enough to refer to the precedent when he and I were sitting in different places before the last election—when our roles were reversed. At that time—I think the noble Lord will accept this, indeed he said so himself—as was usual in this House, as has indeed continued to be usual in your Lordships' House since 1st May, Government Whips and Opposition Front Bench Whips have played a prominent role in the
30
proceedings of your Lordships' House. That has always been so, and I hope that it will continue to be so, especially in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to whom we all pay genuine tribute.
The point is rather different from that. The point is that we always took immense trouble to ensure that when there was a major piece of legislation in your Lordships' House, the Minister responsible in your Lordships' House, if there was one—I am the first to admit that, for instance, latterly before 1st May there was not a Minister responsible for agriculture in your Lordships' House, and therefore that responsibility did devolve on a Whip, and, if I may say so, the Whip concerned discharged his responsibilities competently—took the lead in taking that legislation through the House.
We deemed that that was constitutionally proper because your Lordships' House is, after all, a House of Parliament and as such is entitled to hold the Government to account. The most responsible individual practicable should therefore try to ensure that he or she is responsible for that particular piece of legislation. It is for that reason that I believe, if the noble Lord the Leader of the House looks through every example, certainly during my time as Leader of the House, he will find that when it was possible to produce a Minister responsible for a piece of legislation in the department concerned, the Minister responsible always took the lead during the course of the proceedings on that Bill.
We had hoped that it might be possible for this important piece of legislation to be no exception to the practice of the House which we indeed attempted— I think successfully attempted—to observe in my time as Leader. I understand that my predecessors did very much the same.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Beloff intends to push his Motion to a Division. We have discussed this matter through the usual channels, and it would not be the intention of the Government Front Bench to support my noble friend were that to be the case.
Noble Lords: Opposition‡
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, old habits die hard. I am the first to admit that. I rephrase that-the Opposition Front Bench does not intend to support my noble friend in that Division.
Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will reflect carefully on what has been said. I say that with all the humility at my command. I do not want in any way to hector or to be difficult about this, but precedent in this House clearly shows that when there is a Minister in a department, that Minister takes important pieces of legislation through your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has himself said to the House—and rightly so—and I supported him, that contrary to popular opinion Ministers in your Lordships' House are busy people. Their job is at least as onerous as the job of Ministers in another place. It is for that reason that we admire the noble Lord's efforts

31
to ensure that the rewards—fewer though they may be—for Government Ministers in your Lordships' House do not lag too far behind the rewards available to Ministers in another place, because the review body which is looking at these matters has to be brought to realise that Ministers in this House are often even busier than Ministers in another place, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, so rightly pointed out.
Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House can review this matter, not now—we would of course not want the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to interrupt her preparation for the important debate tomorrow, in which my noble friend Lord Moynihan is also taking part—and as a courtesy to the House come back to the House on this, and perhaps the noble Baroness could favour us with her presence during at least some of the remaining stages of the Bill for reasons which have been made plain this afternoon from a number of sides of the House.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, since this is something of a storm in a teacup, I hope that we shall be able to proceed with the main body of Business very soon. Over 30 noble Lords wish to speak. This is just delaying their opportunity to do so. I recognise the deep and proper concern of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for the constitutional proprieties. I also recognise the strong argument that whatever government are in power, they must never neglect their duties to this House. Ministers must see their responsibility, whether in another place or here, as being first to Parliament.
As was said by the noble Viscount, there is no doubt that, given the collective responsibility of government, it is perfectly proper to have the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, open the debate. He is a competent person in every possible way. I should have liked the noble Viscount to say that, having heard his noble friend, he would advise all his colleagues not to vote for the Motion. However, if the Motion comes before the House I hope that it will in no way become a substitute for a vote on the Second Reading, which is not the custom in this place. Certainly we on these Benches will vote against the Motion should it be put.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the House continues, perhaps I may refer to a matter that I should have raised earlier. The noble Viscount referred to his attitude towards my noble friend Lord Whitty. On 20th May, my noble friend Lord Whitty said:
"Alongside my noble friend Lady Symons I shall be replying on European Union issues in this House".—[Official Report, 20/5/97 co1.256.]
Later, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said:
"Perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord to his new responsibilities. We much look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject as we have enjoyed what he has had to say during his previous sallies in the House".—[Official Report, 20/5/97; co1.257.]
Therefore, it was made perfectly clear as long ago as 20th May that my noble friend Lord Whitty would be replying on European Union issues in this House. I can only repeat what I have said—and that would be merely
32
repetition. I hope that in all the circumstances the Motion does not go to a Division. If it does, I shall certainly ask my noble friends to vote against it.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the House has heard the arguments on both sides. I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Long, V.

Annaly, L.

McConnell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beloff, L.

Monson, L.

Boardman, L.

Newall, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Northesk, E.

Butterworth, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Exmouth, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray, L.

Tebbit, L.

Haig, E.

Teviot, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Westbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Addington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Grenfell, L.

Avebury, L.

Grey, E.

Barnett, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hardie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Haskel, L.

Blease, L.

Hayter, L.

Bridges, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howie of Troon L

Bruce of Donington, L.

Burlison, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carew, L.

Hughes, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ilchester, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Islwyn, L.

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Desai, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dixon, L.

Kennet, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ezra, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Falkland, V.

Ludford, B.

33

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Simon, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stallard, L.

Monkswell, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Moyne, L.

Taverne, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Tenby, V.

Ogmore, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Paul, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Tombs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Tope, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Puttnam, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Whitty, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first I profoundly regret the 38 minutes that we have spent on that Motion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for informing me that a question may be raised about the non-presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. I am grateful to him for that. But I do not believe that the past 38 minutes commend this House for its seriousness and concerns about the issues raised in the way that I would have hoped.
I cannot see any major constitutional issue. As the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal effectively pointed out, from the very beginning of this Government's administration, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has been one of the Front Bench Members handling European issues and he has done so to the great satisfaction of the House. Like many other noble Lords, I wish this House to be treated with the seriousness it deserves. I do not believe that the past 38 minutes have particularly helped in doing so. Perhaps I may be indelicate and ask the question whether those on the Front Bench of the Official Opposition were aware of the position. I trust not.
I begin by dealing with one issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, simply because my noble friends and I found it rather difficult to understand. Several noble Lords are about to speak in this debate who are or have been Commissioners. It has always been my understanding that no Commissioner is appointed by the government of a single member state, nor should he be, for the responsibility of the Commission is a collegiate one. The decision to appoint Commissioners is consensual. There have been occasions when Commissioners have not been further advanced because there was not an agreement among other member states as to the appointment. That is as it should be. They all
34
take an oath to the effect that their responsibility is to the European Community and not to the member state from which they come. Therefore, I found a good deal of that argument difficult to follow other than the discovery of monsters in strange corners of all European issues with which many of us in this House are familiar.
I agree with the noble Lord on his statement that the Amsterdam treaty was a treaty of considerable significance. But I cannot help reflecting on the fact that shortly after the change in government, the Shadow Foreign Secretary in another place announced that it was a matter of such importance that there should be a test of the opinion of the British people on it; namely, that there should be a referendum. In view of the extreme importance of this treaty, I was slightly surprised that we heard no more about that possibility. Perhaps the Official Opposition will assist the House by telling us into which black hole that particular proposal has vanished.
I turn to an issue on which I very much agreed with both noble Lords who have spoken so far. While the Treaty of Amsterdam may be regarded as a consolidating treaty, it is also an essential clearing of the way towards enlargement. Almost all noble Lords in this House regard enlargement as one of those historic challenges of the greatest possible significance, for if enlargement is conducted successfully, it should give us a more stable and democratic Europe all the way across the Continent than has ever been enjoyed before in this century.
It is a great responsibility of the British presidency to so conduct the early stages of enlargement that that highly desirable objective is attained. In that context, I ask the Minister to comment in particular on the European conference which is shortly to be inaugurated under the British presidency. I ask him to be kind enough to tell us a little bit more about how he expects that to be handled: in particular, the link between the first wave of future candidates' countries—the so-called five plus one—and the second wave of states which will come in a little after.
To my mind, one of the most significant features of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which should not be underestimated, is the existence of Article F1 and Article O. All that sounds rather like an alphabetical game so perhaps I may underline what they provide. They provide that at the centre of the European Union lies a commitment to the principle of democracy, individual liberty, non-discrimination and human rights. That is of the greatest importance and significance. That has never been there before. It was not in the Treaty of Rome, nor in the Treaty of Maastricht, nor in the Single European Act.
I believe that the Government can take credit for having arrived, like the sheriff at the OK Corral, to approve the new treaty with human rights at the heart of it when it was clear that the previous government had no interest in putting it there at all, and no interest in putting in place Article 4, which deals with discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disablement and age, and no interest in putting in place the strengthening of the gender equality objectives.

35
I say clearly and loudly that I believe there can be no refutation of this. In the approximately six weeks that the present Government conducted negotiations as regards the Amsterdam treaty, they succeeded in putting in place certain crucial principles that the previous government never did in eight months of negotiations. Therefore, I cannot agree with the proposal made by the Official Opposition that the present Government take full responsibility for the Treaty of Amsterdam. They arrived very late; and, having arrived very late, they put some essential features in place and, in my view, had they had more time, they would have put more of them in place.
I mention one other matter in the context of human rights and civil liberties. Article F1 is of the greatest importance because for the first time it provides that tough sanctions—and they include the removal of voting rights—can be applied against member states which stand in breach of crucial human rights considerations. That is beginning to lay the ground of a constitutional and ethical order in the affairs of the European Union which I believe to be of crucial importance. I do not believe that there is any noble Lord on either side of the European argument who would wish to see a member state in direct contradiction of human rights allowed to join the European Union. That new article places clearly on the line that a country which wishes to be a member state of the Union must meet those tests of human rights and anti-discrimination as well as the economic tests which have applied in the past.
Secondly, I should say a few words about the issue of the third pillar. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, regarded as an achievement the continuation of the opt-out by the UK, Denmark and Ireland from the attempt to establish a so-called area of freedom, justice and security. In that respect, to some extent, he echoed the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We on these Benches do not think that that is an achievement. In our view, one of the greatest benefits which could be brought by the EU to the ordinary peoples of Europe is the opportunity to move around, reside and live where one wishes. Indeed, many people in Europe believed that that was one of the bonuses they would get; not just capital and establishment, but ordinary people's choices. Indeed, it is something that we all believe we care about.
There are problems and I do not diminish them, not least while we still have a terrorist risk on these islands. However, it is unwise to regard the continuation of the opt-out as desirable on more than a purely pragmatic and temporary basis. We would wish to see the attempt to establish that free area of movement and justice as one of the objectives for which Her Majesty's Government were committed. I hope that the Minister will say something about that in his response.
I have two broad points to make on economic issues. First, on these Benches, I do not pretend that we other than regret the Government's decision to indicate their interest in European monetary union but to do so sine die, by which I mean without indicating any kind of target date. The trouble with that—and this emerged very clearly from the House of Lords study of European monetary union—is that momentum gets dangerously
36
lost. It is already clear at least in parts of British business that, whether or not we go in, it is of crucial importance that we are prepared to deal with the euro when it comes. I am troubled by the fact that there is a great lack of preparation, especially in the areas of small and medium-sized businesses. That will not help to make Britain as competitive as it ought to be.
Secondly, there is the significance of the employment chapter. Here again, having criticised Her Majesty's Government on the issue of Schengen and the zone of freedom and liberty, I want to commend them for what has been a very rapid building on the Luxembourg summit and on the employment chapter. It is most encouraging to see now the effort to move towards the comparison of good practice in job creation and in employment policy. That will come to its culmination at the Cardiff summit when all the countries of the Union submit their proposals on how to deal with creating more jobs and how to deal with employment. On this one, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have taken the lead and done so most successfully.
Perhaps I should declare a momentary interest at this point in that I am the chairman of something called the "Jobs Creation Competition" in the European Union. The most fascinating aspect of that work is the extraordinarily good and innovative ideas that are coming from some of the member states, including ourselves, in the area of job creation. I believe that to be of vital importance in encouraging such innovation.
In that context, I have a further question for the Minister. Shortly before the change of government, the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—today's Chancellor of the Exchequer—talked briefly about the possibility of a contra-cyclical fund to deal with what might be some of the effects of differential shocks on the member states and member regions of the EU should there be, by any chance, a combination of some slowdown within the region—within Europe itself—in economic growth at the time of the introduction by some member states of European monetary union. I do not know now quite what has happened to that idea. It seems to me to be an extremely attractive one. I speak as someone who is most conscious of the fact that in the United States if a state suffers from differential shocks, from an emergency or from an unexpected crisis, the federal government have the power to channel funds towards it, but that there is no analogue to that in the European Union.
I have two further points to make before I conclude. I hope that I shall keep those remarks well below the amount of time that has been taken so far in this debate by individual speakers. I have already pointed out that we have wasted 38 minutes and I believe that to be regrettable. The first of my final points concerns a most important aspect of the switch of visa, immigration and asylum policy from the third pillar to the European Community, with the exception, of course, of Britain, Ireland and Denmark. Can the Minister say something about the need in this country to take steps to speed up our processing of asylum and refugee applications?
It is shameful that, of the whole of the European Union, we should have the worst record in respect of the number of people we detain against whom no charge

37
of any crime has been made. I know that the Government intend to act on this, and I only hope that they will do so with urgency; otherwise our opt-out will be regarded as an opt-out to cover our tracks rather than for better reasons.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the common foreign and security policy about which my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will speak at considerably greater length. I highlight one particular aspect. There has been discussion under the heading of the common foreign and security policy about some form of code of practice with regard to the sale of arms. In the light of the revelations of the past few days, sadly it has become all too clear that certain European countries, and other countries, have supplied the means to create weapons of mass destruction to Iraq and other countries. It also emerges that there is a feeling—it emerged in a letter to The Times today from a number of distinguished military and other figures—that the present controls are hopelessly weak. That is partly because countries compete with one another to sell such weapons of mass destruction.
I wish to commend the idea—and this is our final suggestion of a positive nature for the Minister's consideration—that we should look again at a possibility of creating an arms procurement agency bound by a single and strict code of practice regarding the supply of weapons and arms of destruction to countries which cannot be relied upon not to misuse them. This is exactly the kind of opportunity that the British presidency might pursue. When replying, I should be most grateful if the Minister would comment on that suggestion. I should add that I believe the noble Lord has already shown to the House that his comments on all our suggestions and proposals are likely to be wise, well-informed and helpful.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, in following three such wide-ranging speeches, I shall be very brief. I want to deal with the question of public awareness. In doing so, I should like to draw attention to the steady, if largely imperceptible, movement towards a federal Europe which this Bill will promote. That process has continued through a succession of summits, directives and European Court judgments. Its inexorable progress has been aided by a stream of seemingly unimportant developments and by the failure of successive administrations to draw attention to those developments.
I am reminded of the way in which Gulliver was ensnared by a myriad of slender threads by the Lilliputians—a cautionary simile, but we might remind ourselves that Gulliver broke free. I am concerned to make the point that the process has been continuous and largely unperceived by the electorate. I hope that today's debate, and the ensuing Committee stage, will help in rectifying that important gap.
There is surely no doubt that the founders of the European Union wanted to create a federal Europe. That has been amply demonstrated over the years by public pronouncements and by the general trend of settlements. Successive British leaders have denied our willingness
38
to accept that notion but have, nonetheless, been drawn towards it by the gradual process which I have described. At no time has a British Prime Minister acknowledged publicly the extent to which we have accepted the process and its invasions. This debate will illustrate the further erosion now proposed.
But the keystone of the federal process is, of course, economic and monetary union which would remove effective control of individual economies by seeking to establish a common way forward for a group of countries widely different in culture, economic strength, philosophy and interests. The difficulties in this Utopian vision are already becoming apparent in the fudging of the convergence criteria agreed only two years ago. Basic economic facts are to be ignored so that essentially political aims can be achieved. Such a structure—if it goes ahead—will be built on sand and is likely to have serious consequences unforeseen by its reckless supporters, but with inevitable knock-on effects for other nations.
The fact of the matter is that most of our European partners believe in a social-democratic state in which bureaucracy and protectionism combine to stifle enterprise. Despite that the Government have accepted the social chapter, perhaps failing to realise that proposals will evolve, under qualified majority voting, which will prove undesirable and damaging to this country. It is certainly possible to be pro-European without being pro-federation. I am one such individual. I believe that close collaboration between sovereign European states is to be encouraged by every available means in many areas. But the present mechanism is ruthless in its pursuit of a vision—a politically and economically integrated Europe. To suggest, as has been done, that supporters of that vision in this country should form what is breathtakingly called a "patriotic front" is taking the misuse of our language to new depths. For what is patriotic about surrender of sovereignty?
But the debate in your Lordships' House offers the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the nation the cumulative process of the past 30 years which already affects their lives and governance and which will increasingly come to do so. This country's scope for limiting such developments has been largely ineffective despite trenchant assurances to the contrary. I hope that today and in Committee we shall expose the reality.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I am happy to be enabled to make my maiden speech. I am not sure how I will do as it is such a long time since I last made one. For me it is an occasion which was quite beyond imagination when I was a child on the Isle of Skye, off the north-west coast of Scotland, half a century ago. There I received as good an education as I believe I could have had and also was given a sound basis of thought and outlook upon which to found my life. I was warmed before this debate to receive from my primary school teacher, Mrs. Marion MacDonald, who taught me during the war, a letter of kind good wishes. But I did not believe that this background would lead me here;

39
nor for that matter did I believe it would lead me to the other place, where I was elected Member for Inverness in 1964 and subsequently on another eight occasions.
It was in the run-in to the 1964 election that I became deeply involved in the European argument and wholly persuaded both of its economic need and political vision. It was not an especially popular cause in a rural Scottish seat and both Conservative and Labour parties were eager, not only then but in subsequent elections, to drain every drop of anti-European prejudice they could from the electorate. I do not deny the contention that we did not strongly stress the ultimate political objective of a federal Europe. When Hugo Young wrote in the Guardian on 6th January that Sir Ted Heath and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe,
"always muted the political dimension. They never told a lie as the phobes spend so much time trying to prove, but neither did they exalt the truth. Fearful of causing alarm they retreated into its trading necessity",
he was quite right. But what he and others should recognise is that it is a foolish general indeed who advances indiscriminately on all fronts. For myself in these times it was quite enough clearly to support entry into the European community; to defend endlessly the abolition of capital punishment; and to argue the case for a Scottish parliament against scornful opposition from Conservative and Labour. Labour opposition then was most vigorous‡
I want on the occasion of my maiden speech to pay tribute to the Liberals in another place who in 1960 divided the House on the choice between EFTA and the European Community and were roundly defeated by Conservative and Labour alike by 215 votes to four. Grimond, Clement Davies, Thorpe, Holt and Wade stood up for their beliefs. In 1972 I went as an appointed Member on behalf of the Liberals to the European Parliament, along with that wonderful man, the late Lord Gladwyn. Your Lordships will recall that at that time the Labour Party (old Labour Party) refused to take part. I was, of course, attacked. The slogan of the day was, "Where's Russell? Russell's in Brussels‡". Some days ago a great Frenchman, Maurice Schumann, died, rich in years at 86 or thereabouts. Unlike Enoch Powell, who died at almost the same time, he believed and worked, in far more difficult circumstances of bitter memories of three Franco-German wars, for reconciliation and co-operation. That for me is the role model.
I am grateful to your Lordships on the occasion of my maiden speech for allowing me some recollections and some sentiment. That is all part of the process which led to Amsterdam. In the eyes of some, including myself, it is a disappointing treaty. As a Back-Bencher I imagine that I am allowed to be a little more purist than the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. There is no harm in having some purists around. As I said, it is a disappointing treaty and a treaty of hesitation rather than commitment. Much of the hesitation stemmed from the then British Government, and we look to the Prime Minister to reverse that. To judge from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this seems to be the intention.
40
I believe that there are two great fears behind the hesitation and the opposition which, after all, have persisted for a long time, and both will prove to be two great fallacies, although they were evident in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to whom I recommend the possibility of a change by deed poll to the Lord Opt Out‡ The first is the notion that there is a peculiarly British or French or German or Dutch view not just of life and culture—which there is and which will persist—but of politics. I have never really understood why the Euro-sceptics guddle these two things together. The experience of Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom demonstrates how absurd the contention is. The second is that each of the Union's states have clear national interests which must at all costs, and in all ditches, be defended.
The argument about the adhesion to the social chapter, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred, was not an argument about British interest versus so-called continental European interest, although it was repeatedly so portrayed, but an argument between the dogma of the British Conservative Party and a Liberal, Christian and Social Democrat consensus on the Continent—a consensus of which I believe a majority in this country was also a part. The present Government should beware of using this hollow argument, although I suspect that some time in the future they will. Further, we see clearly in the European Parliament that the groupings are political, not national. The political question is not, what is your nationality, but, what do you want to do? In the previous major debate on Europe in the Commons in which I took part I found myself sandwiched between the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and Sir Edward Heath. Did I say sandwiched? I think "squashed" might be a better word. I said then, "Sometimes I have nightmares and in those nightmares the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is Chancellor of Germany".
Nationalism begets retribution. Interest is almost always a euphemism for advantage, and almost always governmental advantage. We must put behind us that way of thinking. The Treaty of Amsterdam takes us further on the road to creating the stable political and economic conditions in Europe which will be the best safeguard of our diverse peoples, not only in the most populous areas but also the sparsely populated such as those which gave me the opportunity to take part in this Parliament—Inverness, Badenoch, Lochaber and Skye.
5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the pleasant job falls to me of congratulating the noble Lord on his maiden speech and that I do without any reservation whatever. The noble Lord has a considerable reputation against which my perhaps half a page compares with his volume of 10 books. He is well known to all of us, and not only because of his role in the Scottish Liberal Party. For many years he was a Scottish Member of Parliament. He was the leader of his party for a time. However, the role in which I remember him is as a Member of the European Parliament. We had the pleasure of serving together for two or three years when we had the honour of jointly representing our country.

41
This much should be said about European Members of Parliament who do not always have the best of public approbation: in our time the British Members of the European Parliament, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour were always there on the job, and were the most regular attenders of all.
I now pass to the Bill that we are discussing and its relationship with the Amsterdam Treaty. The Bill does not come to us out of a vacuum. In many ways we have already been preconditioned by the European Commission as to how we should receive it. The way in which the whole operation has been carried out over the past few years, and the manner in which it has been conducted by the Commission, is itself conducive to our approaching it from the Commission's angle. Every now and again it becomes necessary to view the issue from a wider perspective.
It may not be generally realised—I await a sharp intake of breath of disbelief—that the European Union is in crisis at present, and that its future is far from assured not only for the reasons set forth by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, with whose speech I profoundly agreed in many ways, but for the following reason. While all the treaties and their detailed warnings and interpretations have been laid before us, together with an ever increasing mass of paper—a record number of 751 documents were received by the British Parliament for its consideration—the world has marched on. At present in the 15 countries of the European Union unemployment has risen steadily to a point where it is now close on 20 million. The figure has been rising for many years. Why has it been going up? The answer is that, quite deliberately and with acquiescence, or perhaps active support and consent, a deflationary policy has been pursued—a policy which has relied mainly on monetarist considerations, and almost complete repudiation of the constructive economic policies of Keynes.
As noble Lords will be aware, it started with the famous Delors speech some little time before the Maastricht Treaty which laid down the economic rules to be followed by the Community. Although I suspect that not everyone read the Delors Report, a large number of noble Lords may have done so. The effect was to reinstitute supply side economics. Supply side economics have failed, and failed badly. As I indicated, in Europe unemployment has risen to 20 million. It may go a little higher when the true British figures are referred to. Currently the figure claimed is 1.3 million but actually it is nearer 3 million. So there may be a further increase.
What is remarkable is that those supply side economics have not been argued about with any regard to variables. Economic and financial life is essentially a variable quantity from day to day and week to week, with one factor interacting upon another. It was decided to enshrine supply side economics into the Maastricht Treaty. It specifies them in considerable detail in terms of permissible deficit, total national debt, degrees of convergence, balance of payment difficulties, and matters of that kind. We should bear in mind that there is a considerable difference between the way that we in the United Kingdom consider the treaties and the laws
42
that result from them, and the manner in which they are considered by our Continental friends. We believe that if they are in print and incorporated into British law under the European Act 1972, that is the law. We sometimes forget that our Continental colleagues tend to regard such matters as a guide rather than being formally incorporated into their legal systems. It is perhaps wise for us to remember that from time to time. However, our memories may occasionally be jogged by French farmers burning British sheep, with gendarmes looking on. We may wonder what is happening to law enforcement; but that is the way it is.
The same Delors, as noble Lords may recall, said at roughly the same time as the report was issued within a few years 80 per cent. of legislation affecting member states would be accomplished at European level. At the time that seemed to me—I do not know whether it seemed so to your Lordships—to be a rather ambitious statement that ran contrary to notions of maintaining the sovereignty of our country.
My attitude towards this matter may perhaps be more informally expressed. When we joined the original Common Market at the request—nay, the demand—of Sir Edward Heath we were promised that there would be no infringement of the national sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That has plainly gone by the board; and I think that Sir Edward would probably agree that he may lay himself open to the charge of having misled the country at the time. I welcome, and indeed have always welcomed, any endeavour to bring the peoples of Europe together on the basis of co-operation to the maximum extent with one another and also for the extension of a common market. That would seem sensible. So would the bringing under some kind of control of pollution throughout Europe—because pollution knows no boundaries.
But what has happened since is totally different. What is beginning to happen more and more every year, with every treaty that passes, is an endeavour to formalise economic matters, particularly matters such as economic and monetary union, which would be far better dealt with in collaboration and close contact with one another rather than by diktat. But it has not happened that way. And it has not happened for a very good reason. I well remember the Commission's earlier stages, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was president. It brought forward proposals which in the main seemed reasonable and commanded national assent. But as time went on, the cascade of paper coming from the Commission progressively increased to a point where it was not easily capable of absorption by any of the government machines of the member states to which the communications were addressed. That happened here. It must be a very rare Minister, even in the Foreign Office or the Treasury, who reads the documentation that comes from the Commission.
The reason for that is very simple. I am quite prepared to believe that the European Commission, appointed as it was with the consent of the various member states, was full of good intentions. But after a while it found that by creating further pressure upon member states it could get more power for itself. The result has been a whole series of measures, accepted with reluctance and

43
sometimes in ignorance by member states, which go all the time to increase the power of the institutions, and particularly the Commission. Over the past five years the Commission has been mainly concerned with the fate, not of the peoples of Europe, but of institutions and the powers which it is itself able to wield.
Let us consider those powers, which have indeed been extended further by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission has sole power to originate proposals. Not only are the Council of Ministers and the various types of Minister powerless to initiate proposals, but also the European Council is not permitted to do so. I obtained confirmation of that the other day. The Council itself cannot originate proposals. They must all come from the Commission.
Moreover, the Commission has a profound effect on the matters that are able to be discussed at the European Parliament. I well remember, as I am sure will the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, the publication of the Maldague Report in 1975 dealing with the position of international companies within the Community. Before that, there was the McDougall Report, to which many people have made reference in the past, determining how changes in fiscal policy could even up some of the structural differences in the various countries concerned. However, the Commission did not allow those reports to be discussed by the Parliament—they were never discussed by the Parliament. It was only the other day that a copy of the McDougall Report was placed in the Library of this House, even though these were vital documents.
In addition to having sole power to make proposals, the Commission is represented in every institution, except at the Court of Auditors. It has representation at all Council meetings, at COREPER meetings, at the deputies of COREPER meetings and on every management and advisory committee; it has 126 embassies throughout the world, side by side with the embassies of member states, all under the control of the Commission itself.
I bear no personal antagonism; I personally found the commissioners with whom I was in contact; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, Mr. Brunner, and Viscount Davignon, whom I knew quite well, to be very nice people indeed. But, with the passage of time, the Commission has accumulated powers to the extent that it is now becoming arrogant. That is a very great mistake. For a non-elected, appointed body of people with power, it is very dangerous to be in that position. That is one of the reasons why I look askance at the Treaty of Amsterdam, which consolidates their position yet further. I do not think it wise for my own country to allow that to continue indefinitely—more particularly, as within the next couple of years, in my view, the system will break down for precisely that reason. The multiplication of institutions, the continued encroachment on the powers of member states by the Commission itself cannot go on for long, and will not be able to resist the feelings of ordinary people in the various countries concerned, who, with unemployment as high as it has now become, are beginning to replicate some of the symptoms of which many noble Lords were
44
aware before the war in relation to the rise of fascism. We cannot assume that we shall be immune to those tendencies. While sympathising with Her Majesty's Government in relation to the troubles that they face at such short notice, and without any doubt as to my noble friend's full intellectual capability to deal with these matters in this place, I venture to suggest that we all ought to begin to think again.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I suspect that the matter arising from our proceedings that most newspapers will report fully tomorrow will be the moving of the Adjournment of the House by my noble friend Lord Beloff. That is a pity, since I am sure that we shall have a long and interesting debate. If, regrettably, I am not here to listen to the winding-up speeches, it is because I have to catch a train to be at an early morning engagement tomorrow in the West Country. I shall read all that is said with very great interest. In particular, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will not think that there is any degree of personal animus in these matters. The whole affair could have been solved very quickly—had he been promoted in the field to the rank of Minister of State, it would have been well deserved.
I differ from the noble Lord on a number of matters, but one of his remarks worried me slightly. It is a matter that worries me in relation to the whole of the Government, and may have something to do with the way in which some of us felt that the correct procedures were not being followed. If I jotted down the noble Lord's words correctly, he said in relation to the question of the social chapter that at the general election the vast majority of the British electorate agreed with the Labour Party. I have to say that the noble Lord is deluding himself. As I recollect it, 11.3 million people out of an electorate of 36.4 million voted Labour. I do not know whether that makes a vast majority in his understanding of the English language; in mine it works out at something like 33 per cent.
I also took great pleasure in hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. He referred back to 1964 when he was inspired—as he still is and had been previously—by the European ideal. I was strongly inclined to agree with him in 1964. He also referred to his education. My school education took place at about the same time as his. I well recollect being instructed by my biology master that one of the distinguishing features of intelligent life is that it can learn from experience and, having learnt, change its response. Certainly I found it necessary to do that.
I recollect that in the past on these matters, particularly when discussing the Treaty of Maastricht, I quoted that great Americanism: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck. I observed that if it has citizens, a currency, an economic policy, frontiers and import duties, just like a state, then the European Union probably is a state.
Since then the shadows of single foreign and defence policies and means of defence have been added. Those shadows have become more substantive in the Treaty of

45
Amsterdam. That treaty allows us to see more of the plumage of this bird. There is little doubt that it is growing up to be a duck: a federal European state. The noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, said that that was a very good thing; he was not worried about that at all; many people think that it is a very good thing. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, correctly said that that may well be the view of some people, but at least we should be clear about it and about where we are heading.
I do not take the view, as does the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, that politicians, like generals, should seek to defeat their opponents by deception, which was the gist of what the noble Lord said. I take the view that my right honourable friend Sir Edward Heath and others at the time of our debates almost 30 years ago were not merely being economical with the truth but were from time to time over-generous with the less-than-truth.
We shall be told, as we were about Maastricht, not to worry; that all these things, such as a single foreign policy and a single defence policy, are in the future and are in any case subject to unanimity. The lesson that my right honourable and honourable friends should have learnt, even if the party opposite has not, is that, if you do not want a thing in the treaty, you should keep it right out of the treaty. Things should not be allowed to creep in through the back door through protocols attached to the treaty, because, like Schengen, they will steadily worm their way in.
The social chapter came in in that way. I know that many noble Lords opposite wanted the social chapter's policies. Equally, there are many of them who do not think that that was the right way for those policies to be brought into this country.
One or two noble Lords have referred to the issue of the single currency. I shall not do so; I believe that that is a matter for another day. However, I find it interesting how quickly the transition has been achieved. It seems that one day it was much too early for anyone to take decisions about these things; then suddenly, as my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Clarke observed, it is now too late to change anybody's mind. When was that split second when it would have been right to think about the issue and to decide? One day it was too early, the next too late. These are the split moments in politics that one has to grab; they are the fleeting moments of life; they have gone already.
Much has gone already in other ways. The Treaty of Amsterdam is a further step along the road to a European state. Of course it is not yet fully formed, but each treaty amendment has taken us along the road. Nothing in any of the treaty amendments has reversed the direction of the march or even put a roadblock in the way.
I was reflecting on this treaty the other day when I took a few moments off for some lighter reading and turned to the New York Times. It led me down an interesting path of thought. I read therein that last week the electors of the State of Maine voted in a referendum—the result of which was mandatory upon the state legislature—for the repeal of the state's legislation banning discrimination on grounds of sex, in
46
reference to homosexuals. I do not know if that is the beginning of a new tide of opinion which will sweep across the United States, but I do not think that members of the homosexual community in the State of Maine should be unduly concerned. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states of the Union not to deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
I now return to the European question. In similar fashion, this treaty imposes an obligation which has to a considerable extent been accepted by signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and which will soon be justiciable directly in our courts. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of Article F(1), to which reference has already been made. That article states:
"The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States".
That is great stuff; I have no objection to that. But what are human rights? Which freedoms are fundamental? If those questions had been asked 50 or 75 years ago, the answers would have been different to those that would be given today. Is it a fundamental human right to be allowed to join a trade union? Is it a human right to carry arms? The US Constitution would appear to think so. Is there a fundamental human right to a minimum wage or to the right to work or, perhaps more controversially, to take drugs or, even more controversially, to engage in sex with children? Some of these things sound outlandish to us but they are no more outlandish than some rights accepted today would have sounded 30 years ago.
While the citizens of Maine can speak and have perhaps struck down laws which are unjust, the 14th Amendment still stands, not because the citizens are citizens of the State of Maine but because they are citizens of the United States of America.
If at some future stage any one of the states of the European Union should enact legislation which the others consider as outlandish, as perhaps many people consider the views of the citizens of the state of Maine in their referendum last week, there is now a power within the European Union to act on that member state concerned—and to act in an extraordinary manner. It can suspend the right of that state but not its obligations.
Therefore, such a state would be able to be deprived of its vote in the Council of Ministers. There are special procedures set out under which a unanimous vote would be one where a member state was not allowed to have a vote. We only had to wait 25 years or so for a unanimous vote with one dissenter to come about—1984. Then, while the dissenter is deprived of its vote, all sorts of things can be done by majority voting or even by unanimity. The structure of the voting procedures in the Council of Ministers could be changed in the absence of that member state.
The question I ask therefore, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and which many noble Lords must ask, is this: after the ratification of this treaty, will the United Kingdom be more like the United Kingdom we were when we entered into the European

47
Common Market, or more like the state of Maine—subject to over-arching federal law about which the citizens of this country can do nothing?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps I can tempt the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, a little further and ask whether he feels that the United Kingdom should also withdraw from the European Convention on Human rights. It has much the same effect on domestic law.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, of course the United Kingdom could withdraw from the convention. Also, that is now being entrenched not only into the law of the United Kingdom, but also the law of the European Union. That is the key point. That is the point which we should be discussing. We should be taking the bold view and choosing between the view of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston and the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, instead of pretending that we are not taking any radical decisions at all and are simply engaged in improving the organisation of the European Economic Community.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, it has been a privilege to sit by the side of my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston and listen to his maiden speech. I congratulate him on it. I did not find that the description of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as regards one part of my noble friend's speech, related to what I heard. If my noble friend has a weakness, it is not in being economical with the truth; it is in being generous about the processes that he himself went through as someone who has believed deeply for many years in creating a European Union.
I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, with great interest because I know how deep his convictions are on these matters. However, speaking for myself, from the time that I first became a deep believer in the benefits for Britain, Europe and the human race generally of creating an "ever-closer Union"—to use the language of the treaty—I have always put forward the argument for the pooling of sovereignty. It is my recollection—I may be at fault because I never followed the speeches of the Conservative leader too closely—that Sir Edward Heath also continually emphasised the argument that going in for European integration was a process of pooling sovereignty and that the advantages for the future lay in pooling sovereignty rather than standing absolutely pat on what was becoming an increasingly out-of-date concept of national sovereignty.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I do not want to prolong my speech, nor indeed his. I say only this: sovereignty cannot be pooled; it lies in one place or another. It cannot be pooled.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, in view of the time I do not wish to continue this argument at any length. But, for example, the collective security in which we took part in NATO did more than anything else to
48
preserve, not the balance of terror, but the balance of peace in the postwar world. That involved a significant degree of pooling of sovereignty in that most sacred of aspects of national sovereignty; that is, the right to deploy military force.
I want to deal briefly with one specific British aspect of our approach to the Treaty of Amsterdam. I share my noble friend's view that it is a rather disappointing treaty. But it is a modest treaty. It is consequential on Maastricht and certainly contains many things that will need close examination in the Committee stage of the Bill to obtain clarification from the Government as to how they mean to implement its provisions. My noble friend Lady Williams described some of those in some detail, for example, in the field of human rights.
For my part, I believe the advantage of the Treaty of Amsterdam is that it represents the first step in the reconciliation between the United Kingdom and its European partners. The new Labour Government, after 1st May, were faced with the difficult task of going into the Treaty of Amsterdam discussions after a long period of total sterility in the IGC brought about by the attitude of the previous Conservative government.
I want to draw attention to the fact that this debate on the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam coincides not only with the British presidency of the European Union, but also with the 25th anniversary of British membership of the Community. It is a sobering thought, certainly for someone who has held the beliefs that I have held over these years, when one looks over the 25 years to find that 23 of the 25 years saw Britain with a reluctant or sometimes hostile government towards the Community. It was only in the first year of membership, in 1973 under the prime ministership of Sir Edward Heath and now in 1998 under the prime ministership of Tony Blair, that we have a Britain that at government level is showing itself to be enthusiastic for British membership of the European Union, making a success both of that membership and the Union itself.
Against the sobering perspective of 23 out of 25 years when we have been the odd man out, I draw two main lessons for the Government in conducting their presidency of the European Union. The first lesson is that we should not become too self-congratulatory about the welcome the new Government are presently enjoying from the rest of the members of the European Union. Sir Edward Heath had the same experience in 1973 and neither he nor indeed the welcome lasted very long.
Our present Prime Minister, with his massive majority, is fortunately immune from the domestic political problems which forced Sir Edward out of Downing Street after only one year of British membership of the Community. But since then we have a lot of leeway to make up. First, there was the Labour government's largely cosmetic renegotiation in 1974, ending with a decisive referendum of the British people in favour of remaining in the Community. Then there were the long years of the hostility of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, the then Prime Minister followed by John Major's ambiguities as Prime Minister in the face of a rising floodtide of Tory Euro-scepticism. No wonder that

49
Tony Blair and New Labour come as a breath of fresh air in Brussels. However, I must warn the present Government that underneath the present love-in there remains in Brussels a mood of waiting to see how far the Government's rhetoric lives up to their actions.
The residual distrust of Britain as a full-hearted member of the European Union has deep historical roots. When I was a young MP at the Council of Europe in the 1950s, I found a bruised sense of disillusion on the mainland of Europe over the attitude of Winston Churchill, who had just returned as Prime Minister. In opposition, as older Members of your Lordships' House will remember, he made a famous speech at Zurich in which he proclaimed his vision of a United States of Europe. His oratory converted, among others, the young Helmut Kohl, who will he with us in the City later this week and will perhaps make some mention of that as one of his formative influences. Then, when the Coal and Steel Community was converted at Messina into the EEC, with its aim of an ever-closer political union, Britain dismissed it out of hand as totally misguided and absolutely bound to fail. It took a long climb back during the 1960s by both Conservative and Labour governments over two de Gaulle vetoes to make Britain a member, only to be followed, as I have said, by almost a quarter of a century of dismal confrontation which has diminished seriously our capital of good will.
The British presidency offers a chance to put that history behind us. This brings me to the second lesson I draw from my memories of the British arrival in Brussels in 1973. We found the biggest obstacle we had to face in making a success of British membership lay in the fact that all new members had to accept the administrative and other arrangements the rest had made to meet their own needs in their own interests over the years since the Community was formed. This was the formidable acquis communautaire.
My own responsibility, as one of the Commissioners in Brussels at that time, was to supervise the setting up of the Community's first regional development fund. I do not wish to make too much of that role except to point out that this was a new policy and that the final shape of that major new institution took full account of the needs of all the new members. But a dominating old institution like the common agricultural policy still reflects the vested interests of the original members and has so far defied radical reform over the whole 25 years of British membership.
Now a new major policy is being born—the single currency—to enhance the existing achievement of the single market. Once again, the British Government will not be there at the beginning. Last year the Labour Party refused—I understand it very well as a working politician—to risk losing votes in the general election by making at that time a declaration of principle in favour of trying to join the single currency in the first wave, if all the criteria had been fulfilled. Now, although the Government have a massive majority, their hands are tied and time has run out on being among the founders.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor will therefore preside over the final decisions about the start of the single currency without being immediate participants. It
50
will he a delicate task. The priority must be to convince our partners in the European Union not only that Britain wants to contribute to shaping a successful economic and monetary union but also wants to join a single currency as soon as possible after it is launched.
The publicity surrounding the UK presidency is a priceless opportunity to create a positive climate of opinion about EMU in Britain and to speed up the practical preparations for joining. In my view, a referendum could then still be held during the lifetime of the present parliament. As recent statements by senior Conservatives have shown, this is, as it has been over many years, a national matter, transcending party political divisions. It is not an appropriate general election issue.
A clear referendum decision in favour of joining, which I believe would be once again obtained as it was back in 1975, before the next general election would have the advantage of rescuing Mr. William Hague from what is really the nonsense of his compromise policy of "not for 10 years". I can understand a policy of "never" as a matter of principle; I can understand a policy of "as soon as possible"; but a policy of "not for 10 years" seems a very odd one indeed. However, if a referendum were to be held before the general election and the issue were to be out of the way, it is just possible that, after 25 years, at last the issue of continued full-hearted membership of the European Union for Britain might be taken out of the mainstream of British politics.
I say this in conclusion. There is a good deal of talk going around about a single currency being something special and being the end of hundreds of years of British history. I take a different view of this matter. I think we would he deserting hundreds of years of British history if we were to continue opting out of a single currency and of economic and monetary union. We would become a marginalised member of the European Union while the other members went ahead with these great policy developments. Over our history we have always been there helping to shape developments in European diplomacy. The new framework for that is the European Union. We shall cease to be a central member of that greatly at our peril.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the debate we are having on the Second Reading of the Bill is appropriately going wide of the actual contents both of the Bill itself, which we know are negligible, and of the Treaty of Amsterdam. I find no reason to object to that. On the contrary, I welcome it. We will have time enough to look at the details of the Amsterdam Treaty and to weigh up the different claims of "we have no reason for concern or worry" and the opposite anxieties that have been expressed about the further erosion of our own self-government that is entailed in the extension of competence in the treaty.
I am glad that my noble friend who opened the debate encouraged this rather wider scrutiny. He said that we should set the treaty—he tried to do so himself—in the wider context. That is absolutely essential if we are to understand what has happened to Britain and to Europe

51
in the past 40 or 50 years, and very much so in the past 10 years, of development. I have followed events in Europe closely over my political lifetime and I have had the advantage of considerable direct contact with parliamentarians, Ministers and Commissioners in the European Union. In the 10 years that preceded my entry to your Lordships' House, I served on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who I am glad to see is in his place and who will be speaking later. I often put the question which I think has to be answered most clearly today: where are we in terms of the development of the European Community and our own nation; where are we going; what is the destination? I found that virtually everywhere but in London people would say, either informally or occasionally quite publicly, that the purpose and goal is to create a new European state. It is perhaps only here, and for reasons which we may have to examine very carefully, that political leaders cannot find it in them to face the British people with the truth about what is involved in the European Community.
No one should doubt that even from the beginning, from the High Authority set up in the European Coal and Steel Community in 1948 and the European Defence Community and European Political Union which were aborted in the 1950s, this thrust towards a new state was there. If anyone has any lingering doubt then please go and read the admirable memoirs of Jean Monnet. In many ways he was the intellectual architect of the whole enterprise. He himself quite openly spoke about and set up the action committee for a United States of Europe as long ago as 1956.
In those earlier years there were quite powerful counter-forces. Above all, there was the opposite vision of a Europe des patries. That was pushed forward by General de Gaulle. For a considerable period of time, although the competence of the European Community and its institutions gradually spread, the countervailing forces of a Europe of nation states—the desire to maintain national independence on many matters—prevented, as it were, the thrust towards a European state from becoming the dominant force. Indeed, I would say that it was recessive until that fatal year 1989. We all know what changed then. There was a change in Community terms in the form of the Maastricht Treaty. But what preceded that and what gave a particular thrust to it was the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Then there was that remarkable, historic change in, above all, French policy on Europe. It was the total abandonment by Mitterrand of the Gaullist concept of a Europe des patries and a passionate thrust by the French to embrace as much as they could of a new Germany, 80 million strong, in the meshes of a new, larger and more embracing European treaty. Was it coincidence or good fortune, because at the same time they had the most powerful president of the Commission—which had an openly federal agenda—working alongside them in the person of Jacques Delors, who was by far the most
52
powerful European Commission president since Walter Hallstein? Together with Chancellor Kohl they drove forward the European project into the Maastricht Treaty.
Let us just consider for a moment what it embraces. I am quite entitled to talk about Maastricht because the Amsterdam Treaty is simply a minor adaptation of what is in the Maastricht Treaty. That treaty establishes a European citizenship. We know a little about its rights and we shall hear more as the years go by about the obligations of that citizenship. It established economic and monetary union and the commitment to a single currency. It created the two new treaty pillars to encompass both internal domestic legislation, including civil law, immigration and aspects of policing, and external, foreign, security and defence policies.
This marked a major tilt in the balance of forces within the European Community. From that moment onwards it is impossible for any serious student of European affairs to deny that the reality of Europe is now its programme towards a single state. In a sense, the preamble to the treaty itself marks it. It says,
"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe".
They very nearly actually stated something which was even firmer. The final Dutch draft of the Maastricht Treaty, which was considered in Maastricht by the Council of Ministers on 8th November 1991, just before signing, had these words in Article A, which is the opening article of the Maastricht Treaty:
"This treaty marks a new stage in a process leading gradually to a Union with a Federal goal".
That dreadful "federal" word was used again in Article W which said that there would have to be an IGC within two years of the signing of the treaty so that further progress could be made in the direction of integrating the European Union.
My understanding is that it was only a desperate, last-minute plea by British representatives in Maastricht which secured the removal of that dread word "federal".
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be interested to know that only one country voted for the Dutch draft.
Lord Shore of Stepney: Only one?
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, only one country, apart from the Dutch presidency itself, actually voted for that draft.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it was due to a rather desperate British plea to other friendly countries not to hideously embarrass us and imperil the process of securing acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty once they got back home.
One must consider what the commitment to a single currency and EMU involves. It denies a nation its own currency; it denies it its use of its own national, central bank; it has no control over the domestic money supply, and it loses, or has seriously curtailed, its right to borrow. I maintain that under those conditions a nation state can no longer function as an independent entity. At

53
the same time the European Union, with its newly acquired single currency, its central bank in Frankfurt and its control over interest rates and exchange policies, besides its treaty control over public borrowing, takes on the power of a separate sovereign state.
The Amsterdam Treaty says nothing new about a single currency and EMU—yet there is an important addition, which is the adjacently negotiated Stability and Growth Pact. Under that pact it has now been agreed what punishments, mathematically computed, are to be inflicted on offending nation states which dare to borrow too much beyond the 3 per cent. GDP limit. Such a penalty would have had considerable significance for the UK if these arrangements had been in place and we had been a member of the single currency during the last parliament. Indeed, on the best calculations that I can make, Britain would have been fined £14 billion for its efforts to escape from the desperate difficulties in which we found ourselves after the collapse and withdrawal of the pound sterling from the ERM.
As it has been said, the Amsterdam Treaty itself advances further in the direction of a European state, particularly by strengthening the federal institutions of the Union, but also in its extension of treaty control over virtually the whole of the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty.
Perhaps I may return to the main point that I am putting. The big picture is indeed the creation of a state. The ruling circles—the class politique—in the majority of the member states of the European Union are now openly committed to the creation of such a state. But we are not. Indeed, the whole idea of absorption into a European state is repugnant to the vast majority of British people. More—and very interestingly—political leaders of all parties who are broadly friendly and Europhile in their attitudes do genuinely recoil from the prospect of our absorption, via EMU and the single currency, into a European state. I would cite among others the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. William Waldegrave, and, in the light of his recent statements, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who was certainly an enthusiast during many stages of the development of the European Union. I would include in that category of basically friendly pro-Europeans who cannot stand the idea of being absorbed by a single currency into a European state the present Prime Minister and his predecessor.
The European state is, indeed, the dividing issue. So, what are we to do now that our European partners are clearly set on a different course with a different goal? Frankly, I think that our first requirement is to be honest about the whole development. There is a suspicion in the minds of many of our people that politicians of all parties find it difficult—and have found great difficulty over many years—to speak frankly about Europe and its true destination.
I recall two quotations which are worth citing. One was Prime Minister Edward Heath's assurance in the White Paper of 1971:
"there is no question of any erosion … of essential national sovereignty".
54
I am afraid that that has been wholly disproved by events. The second quotation, to maintain a balance, was the assurance given by Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the 1975 referendum campaign that it was safe to remain within the European Community because:
"there was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This would have forced us to accept a fixed exchange rate for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed".
I do not claim that there was any deception—I do not think that it was deliberate—but I do think that both of them misread and failed to anticipate the power of the thrust towards a single state in Europe.
Now that the issues are so much clearer, there can be no excuse for not telling the British people the whole truth about what is involved. I cannot abide—and the British people will not forgive—those often covert federalists who deny that the EMU/single currency project has any significant political or constitutional implications. We heard that statement solemnly made despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary not long ago by the highest authority in another place.
Next, we must be honest with our European neighbours. We have been reluctant to be so, but since we are now pursuing different goals and since we are in a minority, we are obliged either to negotiate opt-outs in increasing numbers for ourselves or to hinder, obstruct and delay the rest of the European Community. The previous government found themselves in precisely that position over both the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. Needless to say, it was not the only reason, but it was a powerful underlying reason, why our relations with our continental neighbours so markedly deteriorated. Those relations have somewhat improved, and I am glad of it. But I hope that we shall he able to sustain that position, but we shall he able to do so only if we have an open and honest understanding that we have reached the point where we can no longer go further into the project which the majority of our continental neighbours have set for themselves.
We must also be honest with ourselves. It is no good now for British Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries to say that they wish to "lead Europe" or that they want Britain to be "at the heart of Europe" when the majority of European states are now clearly heading for a very different goal—a European state—from that which we want for ourselves.
I do not want to end my speech on too negative a note. I am very much in favour of the most friendly relations and the maximum co-operation in the economic and political field with our European neighbours. My view of the future of Europe is indeed of a continent of democratic self-governing nation states working together to achieve greater prosperity for all their peoples and for peace and harmony in their interstate relations.
It is inevitable with so large an area being brought into the compass of the European association that some member states will wish to go for the goal of total integration, the creation of a new state, while many others will wish to hold hack. For the first time—this may be the most significant part of the Amsterdam

55
Treaty—the treaty itself, in its clauses on flexibility and "enhanced" co-operation, envisages the possibility of some states, the majority of states, moving forward in one direction while others remain permanently outside and do not share that endeavour. I do not think that flexibility is yet sufficiently well defined in the Amsterdam Treaty for us to be able to build on it, but the treaty gives us a new opportunity to achieve something more satisfactory for all of us—those who want to go forward into a European state and those who do not—than has so far been offered us.
I am not one of those who fear a strong new continental power on the other side of the Channel. If that be the wish, not only of their political leaders but of their peoples, we should not stand in the way of a European state. I see no reason why we should feel any more threatened or disadvantaged by its existence than Canada today feels anxious or threatened by its great neighbour to the south.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union into 15 separate nation states and the collapse of Yugoslavia into five new sovereign republics, this is clearly not the age of the giant state—not even of the large but rather artificial federal state. It is in fact the age of the democratic nation state—over 200 of them now occupying all the different continents of the world. I believe that the United Kingdom and its people have the will, the self-confidence, the resource and the alliances to remain a leader and an exemplar to those states.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am always intrigued in this and similar debates by the constant reference to "the nation state". The one thing the United Kingdom is not is a nation state. Its very name indicates that it is a union of four nations: the English, the Scots, the Welsh—indeed, not so very long ago a Bill on the Welsh language passed through Parliament—and the people of Northern Ireland. We are a union. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the present debate, but it is a matter which constantly comes to my mind.
One of the interesting points about debates on Europe is that divisions do not follow the usual party lines. In that respect, I am happy to say that tonight, in relation to the Amsterdam Treaty, I agree neither with the uncritical eulogy of the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Labour Government, nor entirely with the root-and-branch condemnation of my noble friend Lord Moynihan in his attractive and well presented speech.
The Amsterdam Treaty is important not for what it does but for what it fails to do. This is the one and only point that I propose to raise this evening. The task that the Government were set was set out clearly in the Maastricht Treaty in Article N, referring back to the fifth indent of paragraph 1 of Article B. That remit was to make whatever changes were necessary to secure—I now quote the words of the Maastricht Treaty:
"the effectiveness of the mechanisms"—
56
your Lordships should note that reference to "the mechanisms"—
"and the institutions of the Community".
I repeat the reference to the "mechanisms and the institutions". That was what the Amsterdam Treaty was supposed to do; and that is what it has singularly failed to do.
The treaty has done all kinds of other things that it was not asked to do. One can understand this. The Union was subject to all kinds of pressure from special interest groups, lobbies, the European Parliament and individual governments, all of whom had their national agendas. One government in particular in its earlier manifestation pursued diversionary tactics; in its later manifestation it pursued its own domestic agenda. While all of this no doubt pleased or angered the special interest concerned, it frustrated the whole purpose of the exercise defined in the Maastricht Treaty, which was to secure the effectiveness of the institutions and the mechanisms of the Community.
Before I explain why this point is so fundamentally important, while I regard the treaty as a failure because it has failed to do what it was supposed to do, nevertheless I believe that we should ratify it and pass this Bill simply to get it off the agenda in order to turn our attention to what really matters.
We must be absolutely clear what is at stake. My noble friend Lord Moynihan dealt with this point in some detail. I follow what he said. Enlargement is by common consent the greatest challenge and opportunity that faces the European Union. Unless one succeeds with enlargement, the immense opportunities opened up by the collapse of the Russian empire and the liberation of central and eastern Europe will be squandered. Unless one deals properly and effectively with the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the Community—incidentally, it is the Community to which the Maastricht Treaty refers; it is the first pillar, not the second and third pillars—one will not have enlargement within any realistic period of time, or if one does it will fail. That is what is at stake, and we had better recognise it. The issue was dodged in the run-up to the previous enlargement; it was dodged again at Maastricht; and it has been dodged once more at Amsterdam. We simply cannot go on dodging it.
I do not propose to debate the merits or demerits of enlargement. It rests upon a political decision already taken and reaffirmed on more than one occasion. I also leave on one side the immense task that the candidate countries themselves face. Because we are debating the Amsterdam Treaty and what it has done or failed to do, I deal only with the task that faces the European Union. The abiding trouble with the European Union is that it tries to advance on too broad a front and do too many things all at once. This is understandable. It is subject to so many pressures from special interest groups, national governments, the European Parliament and every conceivable lobby, but it simply does not have the resources to respond. It does not have the collective will. The bureaucracy is too small judged even by British standards.

57
The Council of Ministers, which is the nearest thing to a government that the Union has, has no sense of collective responsibility. Its members are more interested in pursuing their national interests than serving the common good. The European Parliament can spend money but has no responsibility for raising the revenue that is required to finance the policies that it advocates. As a result, many projects are started, few are properly finished and some not at all. Those that are finished take far, far longer than they should.
Let us look at the present position. The single market programme launched in 1985 and due for completion by 1992 is still not complete, due not least to the fact that attention was switched to the single currency as early as 1988 before the single market had got properly on its feet. As a result, we have to cope with the launch of the single currency at the same time as we struggle with the single market. We have now embarked upon enlargement, but look at what it involves. If enlargement is to proceed not only do we have to complete the single market and launch the single currency successfully but we have to reform the common agricultural policy and the structural funds. There is a need for a drastic overhaul of the finances of the Union. There has been a great deal of talk but little action. A vast amount of paper has been produced but no results.
As at present the omens are not good. The reform of the common agricultural policy is in the hands of the Council of Agricultural Ministers. It will be within the recollection of many noble Lords that the Ministry of Agriculture in this country was always defined as "n 'but a farmers' lobby". I assure noble Lords that the Council of Agricultural Ministers is far worse than that. Its only remit is to protect the interests of the farmer. I have nothing whatever against the interests of farmers, but unfortunately every reform of the CAP that has been undertaken so far has cost more money.
As far as concerns the structural funds, some of the major beneficiaries have already staked out an intransigent position and hostages have been taken. The anodyne and comforting assurances given by the Commission that enlargement can be encompassed within the Edinburgh ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of GNP are complete rubbish, which is the mildest description that I can think of. There is no hope whatever of this immense series of tasks being completed in time for enlargement to take place in any acceptable time-frame unless drastic action is taken on the very matter that the Amsterdam Treaty was supposed to deal with but did not; namely, the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the Community. All we have is a weak-kneed protocol postponing once again a decision on two—and frankly the least important—aspects of this problem; namely, the size of the Commission and the distribution of votes in the Council of Ministers until the next enlargement takes place. But on the crucially important issue of majority voting and the use of the so-called veto there is virtually nothing. That is to be postponed until the next enlargement takes place. We have had one, two, three and now a prospective fourth postponement of a critically important matter in relation
58
to enlargement. On the crucially important issue of majority voting and the use of the so-called veto there is virtually nothing in the treaty.
What are we to do about this, at least if we are serious about enlargement? I look back to what we did about the single market programme. Its success—to the extent that it was a success—rested upon two matters: first, the introduction by the Single European Act of majority voting for single market issues. I ask noble Lords to note that particular qualification. Secondly, it rested on the personal commitment of the heads of government themselves, not just their Ministers or officials, to the single market programme. The commitment was not only that of the major countries—France, Germany and the United Kingdom—but the smaller countries. Sometimes in those discussions people tend to be somewhat critical of the smaller countries, but from my experience Belgium and Luxembourg played a crucially important role in conducting the Council of Ministers during their presidency on the specific issue of the single market programme.
The adoption of majority voting on enlargement issues—I refer again specifically to enlargement issues—will raise the most bitter of nationalistic hackles but it is the price we will have to pay if we seriously want enlargement: if we seriously want to create a united Europe bringing together all the peoples of Europe from the Atlantic to the borders of the now defunct Russian empire.
Nor can that job be left to the Council of Ministers. The Council is the nearest the Union comes to having a government. But unlike national governments the Council does not represent the general interest: it represents the national interests of the individual member states. Leadership must come from the heads of government meeting in the European Council and they must impose their authority on the Council of Ministers—something they do not always do.
There is a price to be paid for enlargement and it is a very heavy price indeed—not just a financial price but a price in terms of subordinating the national interest to the common good. That is the real challenge we and the European Union face.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am sure that no one was more embarrassed than my noble friend Lord Whitty by what one might call the "Love-in with Larry" that followed the curious démarche of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The praise was well deserved, and I shall say only that I believe that my noble friend is the right person in the right place on the right occasion.
I share the disappointment of a number of other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Whitty, that the clock ran out on the treaty negotiations before there was time to agree on the reform of the European Commission or on vote re-weighting—two very important issues. But I do not share the view of those who say that that has endangered the enlargement of the Union. The question of voting weights, and the number of Commissioners, will be on the table in any case in the accession negotiations.

59
If, as is possible, the next enlargement involves six or more countries, then of course there will, a year ahead of the enlargement accession, have to be another IGC. With fewer than five, those issues will still have to be addressed in time for the next enlargement, but given the priority attached to enlargement by all member states, the necessary reforms should not be unattainable.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, speaks as if the loss of one Commissioner would be a tragedy to be visited exclusively on the UK. He must know that the second commissioner would be lost only were satisfactory vote re-weighting achieved. I find getting the voting weight for the large states correct is far more important than having a second commissioner.
The Amsterdam Treaty, as many noble Lords have said, enshrines the results of a long and tortuous process of negotiation in the IGC. Those results, as many noble Lords have said, are modest, and that is all to the good. It is a sensible, workmanlike treaty which eschews the more radical ideas and aspirations that were being promoted by some member countries, and embraces some undramatic but highly practical steps, as described by my noble friend Lord Whitty, which will help smooth the path to enlargement. I shall touch on just a few of those in a moment, but, first, let me endorse what has already been said about getting this treaty into proper perspective.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and noted the ferocity with which the Conservative Opposition have been attacking the treaty here and in another place. One might have been led to suppose that that was an earth-shaking treaty with the seismic force of another Treaty of Versailles, instead of the modest, though important, stepping stone towards a more efficient and people-friendly European Union.
I suppose that by now we should not be surprised that as soon as the European Council agrees a series of practical, undramatic, timely and necessary amendments to existing Community treaties, the sceptics accuse the Council of stepping on the federal accelerator. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition described the Amsterdam result in your Lordships' House as:
"a substantial further step towards European integration"".—[Official Report, 28/7/97; col. 16.]
When Conservatives use the word "integration" in the EU context, it is usually laden with dark meaning. But for the life of me I have not been able to read that into this essentially unradical and modest treaty.
While the Conservative Opposition may have abandoned their absurd call for a referendum on the Amsterdam results, the airwaves still crackle with the "Save our Sovereignty" SOS distress calls of the sceptics—these clause-by-clause Cassandras, claiming to see the end of Britain as we know it as the certain aim and inevitable result of every modest treaty reform. They have of course convinced themselves that a great federal European state lurks just beyond the portals of the Millennium. I cannot subscribe to that fearsome figment of their imagination, for the good reason that the future of the EU lies in the hands of a majority of countries which want no such federal superstate. My
60
noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney seems to communicate only with people who are hell-bent on creating such a unified European state. I have come across a few of them in my time, but I have met far more people who embrace no such aspirations.
If the Amsterdam Treaty tells us anything, it tells us, in the modesty and pragmatism of its results, that the Union, in its development, is not so far now from the boundaries beyond which further integration would run into the quagmire of political unacceptability. I am confident that we are not going to be dragged across that boundary because Britain now has a strong voice to add to those who have no intention of crossing that boundary either. That is the influence that an engaged Britain can bring to bear on the future of the Union. And that is just what a sidelined Britain under the Tories could not do.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who I am sorry to see has already had to take his train to the West Country, and I feel moved to remind him that the "The Unimportance of Being European"—that dreary tragi-comedy about a policy found in a handbag—has now run its course. The public brought down the curtain on it on 1st May last year, and the prospect of reviving it is mercifully remote.
To be frank, I find it wholly risible that anyone should claim, as some do—among them the Shadow Foreign Secretary in another place—that a Tory government would have delivered an Amsterdam Treaty that was both better for Britain and better for Europe. Official Tory policy on this nation's place in the Union would have rendered those two results mutually exclusive. By contrast, the Labour Government were able to put their signature to a treaty that was good both for Britain and Europe. In the negotiations the Government were able to ensure that our essential interests over immigration, foreign policy and defence, were protected, as my noble friend the Minister pointed out this afternoon.
It is of course the sceptics' cry that the limited and sensible extension of QMV (qualified majority voting) was just a sell-out, a capitulation, another nail in the coffin of British sovereignty over its own interest and affairs. How self-deluding can they get? For example, can they suggest a better way of ensuring that no one country can block Council action where fraud is perpetrated against the Community budget? Conservative voices have been vociferous in their condemnation of fraud in the Community, and rightly so. But when it comes to extending qualified majority voting in order to strengthen the Council's hand in its fight against fraud, and the powers of the Court of Auditors to investigate the use of Community funds, the same old dreary save-our-sovereignty distress call echoes around the Chamber.
And while we are at it, may we assume that a Conservative government, in keeping with their total hostility to any extension of QMV, would have fought at Amsterdam against the extension designed to improve the transparency of the Union's decision malting? How totally inconsistent with their traditional protestations about a lack of such transparency. And how fortunate they were not at Amsterdam to wreck that one. They hang the millstone of no extension of QMV about their

61
necks, all the while complaining about the conditions that only extension can effectively change for the better. And where is the logic in the Conservative argument that qualified majority voting was necessary to create the Single Market, but not in relation to anything else?
I am delighted that the principle of subsidiarity is strengthened by the treaty. Article 3b in the Maastricht Treaty has rightly been criticised as too vague in its guidelines on when and how it is to be applied. The Conservative Opposition cannot credibly object now to the protocol's insistence that the subsidiarity principle does not affect the primacy of the acquis communautaire. It was already there in the Maastricht Treaty negotiated by them. What is of great importance in Protocol 7 is that it requires the reasons for concluding that a Community objective can better be achieved by the Community to be substantiated by qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators. And what is also good for Britain is that we can challenge the Commission in the European Court if we feel that it is wrongly treating a matter at Community level when it ought to be a matter for subsidiarity.
That is a big advance, as is the provision that the Court will also have the authority to intervene, if asked to do so, to ensure that the rules on flexibility have been properly applied. In my view, yet a further major advance is the treaty provision under which the European Parliament gains the power to approve the appointment of the Commission president, and that the nominee for the Commission presidency gains the right of common accord with member states over the appointment of commissioners, and subsequently on their replacement.
The very mention of an increase in the powers of the European Parliament sends many sceptics up the wall—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is me‡
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I know that it sends my noble friend Lord Stoddart not only up the wall but over it‡ It was an absurdity that the parliament, while having the right to be consulted about the presidency, could only accept or reject the Commission as a whole. That anomaly has correctly been removed by Article 2 of the new treaty. What is important is that the exclusive right of member states to nominate the president is maintained. Critics such as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, grumble that the parliament can now block a nominee wanted by all the member states. In theory, the answer to that is yes. But the scenario is far fetched in reality. It would be very unusual to find a majority of parliamentarians so much out of sync with their governments in the Council on a matter of this nature, and the remote risk that they might is a price well worth paying for another step in the democratisation of the Union.
I am convinced that the British public will endorse the right of the European Parliament to have effective control of the actions of the Commission, and the Council when it acts collectively, so long as it is written in stone that it is the Parliament here in Westminster which sanctions the signing up to agreements with the Council of Ministers by our own Ministers. That is a
62
proper division and sequencing of democratic control and the British people, whose intelligence is often underestimated by the Conservative Opposition, will, I believe, support that.
The same is true of the provision which strengthens the president's position regarding the composition of the Commission. It is only sensible that those appointed to the Commission should be persons capable of working harmoniously with the president to ensure the efficiency of the Commission's work as a whole. If the member states agree on a nominee for the presidency, and the parliament approves, it is only right that that person, duly approved by both states and parliament, should he granted the means to ensure a Commission that he or she can work with.
As a final point, perhaps I may say how gratified I am that the treaty incorporates the social chapter and that its terms will now he applied to this country, ending the unnecessary opt-out. There is no extension of QMV in the chapter. The accent is on encouraging. The new paragraph of Article 118 states that:
"co-operation between member states through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences in order to combat social exclusion".
With regard to any future European social legislation, it is up to us to negotiate successfully in the European Union to ensure that, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal put it in our July debate last year:
"any new legislation in the social field is compatible both with the establishment of sensitive common standards for working conditions and with economic effectiveness".—[Official Report, 28/7/97; col. 12.]
I am confident that the Government can do that.
The Amsterdam Treaty introduces some sensible, pragmatic amendments to the European treaties which have gone before it. It is by no means perfect, but it is a good advance. The amendments should be welcomed by all who favour a continuing process of enhancement of the efficiency, transparency and value of the Union's institution and operations. This Government signed up to treaty provisions which are, for the most part, intrinsically and measurably good for Britain. And in those few cases where our enthusiasm may have been muted, the Government have at least ensured, in accepting provisions as part of a negotiated package, that there is nothing to undermine our essential interests. The Government know well where the boundaries are set. I wish them well in the pursuit of the passage of this Bill and of the ratification of what I regard as a good treaty.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, I suppose that all treaties negotiated between six, 12 and now 15 nation states must be something of a disappointment, something of a compromise and something of a delaying tactic. As regards this treaty, I fear that the compromise and delay have perhaps reached the point of pusillanimity and of posing serious difficulties for the Union, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cockfield.

63
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, stated that today's debate has gone rather wide. Your Lordships may find my remarks a little prosaic because I intend to concentrate on two areas where I regard the treaty as having been something of a disappointment. The first is democratic accountability and institutional reform and the second is enlargement.
I take the view, which I am sure will be shared across your Lordships' House, that democracy begins at home. It does not end at home, but it begins at home. On the introduction of the Maastricht Bill, and the same is true with the Bill before us, it struck me as one of the areas where we must begin by looking at our own House. Here is a treaty with no more than three clauses. Parliament is invited to debate and discuss the treaty without being able to amend a single dot or comma. Naturally enough, in a lively Parliament such as ours that gives some offence to Members. I share in that feeling. The reason is that Parliament as a whole has not yet adapted to the hybrid nature of European Community business. We treat European Community business as a foreign affair. Therefore, once the treaty is negotiated it is presented to the House under the Ponsonby rules and the House has no alternative but to agree to this three-clause Bill which, as was the case with the Maastricht Treaty, affects up to 60 or 70 per cent. of the daily lives of our fellow citizens.
Therefore, it is quite important that Parliament, through the committee under the chairmanship of the Lord President of the Council, begins to address ways—and I know it is very difficult, but the Danes have found a way forward—by which Parliament itself can be much more closely involved with the Executive in the negotiating process so that we do not find the Executive coming to a British Parliament with a three-clause Bill and saying, "You can debate the Bill and talk about it as much as you like but you cannot amend it or alter it by a single dot or comma".
Just as important in terms of scrutiny and parliamentary involvement—and this is one of the key areas that we must get right in the next decade of the development of the European Union—is the way in which we scrutinise European Union draft directives. It is fair to say that the British Parliament, along with the Danish Parliament, does quite a good job. But it is not enough for us to do a good job. We must ensure that every other parliament is also given that opportunity. One of the things that struck me most forcibly when I was involved in those matters was that any British Minister—it was true of the government which I served and I am sure it is true of the present Government—went to Brussels feeling that parliamentary opinion was almost sitting on his shoulder. I very often felt that some of the other Ministers with whom I was negotiating were unencumbered by the difficulties which Ministers often face here.
The Amsterdam Treaty goes some way in that regard. There is a new protocol whereby the COSAC Committee—the Conference on European Affairs Committee—is now able to meet and make formal although not yet binding recommendations to the body of the European Union. But in my view, we must go
64
much further than that. A number of years ago, the French Government made a proposal for a parliamentary assise. It was not a success. It was a kind of second chamber within the European Union where the concerns of national parliament could not only be voiced but could be fed into the whole comitology procedure. That was not a success but it is something which should be revisited.
I turn now to institutional reforms, the sort of plumbing of the European Union. Plumbing, whether it be in international organisations or in private homes, is rather important. In that area, the Amsterdam Treaty is a very grave disappointment. My noble friend Lord Cockfield has pointed out that we shall not be able to proceed with enlargement or with a sensible structure for the European Union unless we get these matters right.
There are five areas where action is needed and has so far been delayed. The first concerns languages. The European Union has 11 official languages. The United Nations manages to jog along with six, three of which—Chinese, Arabic and one other—so far, at any rate, do not concern the European Union. In the first instance, we should aim to bring that number down to five in the European Union. That seems to me a fairly modest aspiration and it would certainly make the physical workings of the European Union much simpler.
As regards Commissioners, it is right that the larger countries should reduce to one Commissioner. I believe that it follows from that that the five main portfolios should always be held by one of the large countries and the presidency should always be held by a small or medium-sized country. That is a fair balance of power between the large and small and medium-sized countries.
I believe also that presidencies should be annual. The United Kingdom is a large country with quite substantial resources but I well remember that the strain on resources not just as regards the time of Ministers but the resources of officials in keeping that presidency on the road was simply enormous. It is impossible to believe that small and medium-sized countries are able properly to cope with that. The danger of asking them to do so is that it puts too much into the hands of the Commission—and I am certainly not one of those who regards the Commission as the devil incarnate, but it is important that the presidency should be led by a nation state. I should like to see annual presidencies run by a troika consisting of one large country, one medium and one small.
Finally, as regards weighted voting, the extreme case is the comparison is between Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany. It works out at about 200,000 per vote for Luxembourg and 800,000 for Germany. Clearly, that must be brought more into line. All those decisions have been funked and they must be confronted.
Finally, as regards enlargement, many noble Lords have said already, and I shall not labour the point, that enlargement is perhaps the most important moral issue that we have faced in this part of the world since the end of the Second World War. Suffice it to say that what the European Union proposes at present is to increase

65
the size of the Union by about one-third and to devote about one-tenth of its budget to that enterprise. It simply will not work.
I make three suggestions. First, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cockfield that we should ring-fence the issue and have majority voting. That is what pushed through the single market and that will be one of the ways of pushing through enlargement.
Secondly, it may come as something of a surprise to some of your Lordships but at the moment the European Union is underspending on its budget. I believe that the 1.27 guideline is running at about 1.16, which leaves about 11 basis points, as I believe they are called in the City. I should certainly be in favour—and the Government could certainly put forward this proposal during their presidency—of ring-fencing, if not all, then a substantial part of that remaining ceiling in the budget and devoting it specifically to the important subject of enlargement.
I believe that the Amsterdam Treaty is one sense innocuous but in another sense is something of a disappointment because it has yet again failed to face up to the two major tasks which it was set—institutional reform and enlargement. I cannot disagree with the remarks made in a report entitled Britain's Role in Europe published recently by the Royal Institute of International Affairs under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. It stated:
"Given the weak Amsterdam results these new conditions do not inspire confidence either in the European Union's commitment to enlargement or in its ability to address and agree serious institutional reform".
The problem with debates about the European Union in our country is that they are constantly being polarised between those like the noble Lord, Lord Shore, who believe that the European Union is in some way going to destroy our island home and starry-eyed enthusiasts who tend to take the view, "Europe right or wrong". My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has already been quoted in this debate. He was right to say in a letter he wrote to the Financial Times that the difficulty which he faces—and I face it as well—is in trying to steer a middle course between those two views. My noble friend Lord Tebbit says that we want to be clear; we want certainty. He is certain that we are heading towards a single state, as is the noble Lord, Lord Shore. I have no such certainty at all. However, I believe and continue to believe that this enterprise is the most important that we have undertaken in Europe in peacetime in this century.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I travel in hope and with determination: in hope because I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, about the abilities of the British people; and with determination because I am determined, as I know this House will be, to ensure that the values which this country has stood for should prevail and shall prevail within that Union.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, it is once again my privilege to precede the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in a debate involving Europe. I did so on a previous occasion when we debated foreign policy. On that occasion the noble Lord sympathised with the Minister for having to sum up on,
"a speech such as the one we have just heard, which reminds me of nothing so much as the kind of thing that was talked about by the League of Nations in the 1930s. I thought we had grown out of that sort of thing".
I think I am right in discerning that that was not meant as a compliment. However, I shall not be abusive in return about matters that took place earlier this afternoon. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was quite right to trace a link between the failure of the League of Nations and the steadfast belief that I, and many others of all parties, hold today in the need for an effective and integrated Europe, rather than an intergovernmental and impotent Europe. I am rather glad that I have not grown out of that belief.
I very much welcome the element of cross-party agreement today. I was extremely pleased to listen not only to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—one of the great architects of an effective Europe through his work on the single market—but also to the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, who was one of the most constructive members of the previous administration in regard to European policy.
For most people, especially of my generation and younger, effectiveness through pooling efforts—pooling sovereignty—to provide prosperity, democracy and security, which we cannot do on our own, is more important than empty national sovereignty. I believe that there is a cleavage between those who wish to hang on to the past and its symbols and those who are self-confident enough about Britain to accept that progress towards security in a world which is as uncertain as it is exciting, means sharing power in order to gain real influence.
Indeed, one can trace a link between acceptance of diversity and power-sharing on a domestic and on a European level. The voices that I hear in favour of "lone Britannia" often seem to be the same ones who are against devolution of power within the UK and suspicious of a diverse society.
The new Government's more rational approach to Europe is a welcome contrast and relief, despite, perhaps the efforts of people like the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, from the alternate hysteria and hostility sometimes shown by the last government. One does not want perhaps to have too much realism and rationality at the expense of enthusiasm. The failure of this Government to seek a more united and coherent role for the European Union over Iraq is a great disappointment for those who believed what they said about leadership in Europe.
On the Richter scale of impact in building Europe, the Amsterdam Treaty scores maybe two as opposed to nine for the ground-breaking Treaty of Rome and six or seven for the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. It should have scored a lot higher, as other noble Lords have said, hut, regrettably, the major hoped-for institutional

67
reforms to prepare for enlargement were not achieved; namely, the changes to voting rules in the Council and the linked question of the streamlining of the Commission. That procrastination was really rather poor, and it means yet another intergovernmental conference will have to be convened in a few years' time before six more members join to sort it out. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what preparations the Government are making towards those essential reforms?
It would be excellent if we could open up the process of EU development to greater public debate. I was interested to bear what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, said about the limits of the present process and the limits of our role in debating the Bill. Perhaps we need something more akin to a constitutional convention as has happened in Scotland. If institutional issues are presented in terms of democracy, accountability and openness, I believe that they would come more alive and be seen as being more relevant, rather than institutional issues being described as "boring"; as, indeed, the Prime Minister has done. I believe that calling such matters boring can sometimes be a deep cover for those who cling to secrecy.
There are modest but welcome improvements in the Amsterdam Treaty: first, in the streamlining of the legislative procedures, especially the extension of co-decision between the Council and the European Parliament and, secondly, the simplification to three procedures involving the Parliament. There is also the modest extension in the use of majority voting in the Council. I well remember asking a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why the then government were so opposed to the extension of majority voting when, for instance, our own companies in financial services—such as in pension funds—and in the energy sector would greatly benefit from the liberalisation of continental markets, which could only be achieved through the use of majority voting. He replied that it was more important to stick to the principle of unanimity than it was to give our own companies commercial opportunities. That is rather sad.
I also welcome in the Amsterdam Treaty, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, the fact that the position and authority of the Commission president is usefully reinforced by giving him—or perhaps there may soon be a her—broad discretion to allocate portfolios in the Commission as well as the right to be consulted on the nominations. It is to be hoped that that will mean the end of the "Night of the Long Knives" at the beginning of each new Commission when member states haggle over these portfolios. It is also right that the European Parliament is to have power to approve, or reject, the nominee for president.
Overall, accountability is enhanced by a greater role for the European Parliament. That is very good news. Moreover, there is the protocol on information for national parliaments which is binding. The treaty shows the complementary roles of the national and European parliaments, especially over the third pillar
68
matters. It is important to stress that those roles are complementary and that national parliaments should not seek to be part of the legislative process but rather play a role in the scrutiny process.
I also welcome greater progress in transparency—the citizen's right of access to documents. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there is a prospect of those rules on access to documents being drawn up by June—during the Government's presidency, in advance of the two-year time-scale which will be imposed by the Amsterdam Treaty. It would be good news if the Government were to get ahead of that timetable.
I have just one small matter to mention. Nevertheless, it is quite important as regards citizens' rights. I refer to the role of the ombudsman. That process has been very much under used since Maastricht and it would be good if it could be strengthened. Indeed, perhaps the location of the ombudsman could be transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels and perhaps more publicity could be given to citizens' rights as regards approaching the ombudsman.
As my noble friend Lady Williams remarked, it is very welcome that there is a strengthening of commitment to fundamental human rights and action to combat discrimination by entrenching them in the treaty for the first time. There are several other measures which are welcome; for example, the measure to make the subsidiarity protocol binding. I shall not enter into debate about the difference between a federal and a unitary state, but at least the subsidiarity protocol makes the point that we are talking as much about decentralisation as about effective central activities.
Finally, I welcome the strengthening of the common foreign and security policy, although it is rather a modest strengthening. Nevertheless, it has one particular aspect which is helpful; namely, it introduces rules about the financing of actions under the common foreign and security policy. The introduction of constructive abstention is also a useful reform. Overall, I believe that the balance sheet is positive. It will not perhaps have people on these Benches dancing in the aisles, but it is part of the building blocks of European construction.
In conclusion, perhaps I may suggest two actions that the Government could take—one negative and one positive—to boost public confidence in Europe. I suspect that many people will think that the first one has more to do with Europe than the Government. It is rather off the point of previous debates, but I refer to the banning of the use of unpasteurised milk, including in cheese. I am sure that many people will ascribe that to Brussels. Indeed, it is a great shame that it should be happening at this time. It would be good if the Government did not impose that. Secondly, it would be good if they did take up the offer of European money to promote an information campaign on the single currency. More of our citizens would then start to understand the

69
practical benefits of co-operation and why clinging to empty sovereignty offers no way forward in the 21st century.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it has been claimed in some quarters that the Treaty of Amsterdam is of little importance, has no real constitutional implications, no far-reaching economic and social provisions and should not, therefore, concern Parliament overmuch. Nothing could be further from the truth, as my noble friend Lord Whitty confirmed in his opening speech, upon which of course he was complimented by everyone who has subsequently spoken. Indeed, like other noble Lords I congratulate my noble friend on his opening speech. However, I say to him that, while I did not support the move to adjourn our proceedings this afternoon, I nevertheless believe that the point that was raised is an important one. I sincerely hope that between now and Committee stage the Government will consider what has been said about providing a Foreign Office Minister to deal with subsequent stages. That in no way detracts from the excellence of my noble friend's contributions but I believe that it is a reasonable point. I hope that my noble friend and the Government will consider what has been said.
This treaty, like all its predecessors, is very important and provides for further European integration. The objective of this treaty, like that of the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, is to take forward European integration by allocating new areas of competence to the institutions of the European Union or to extend and build upon the competencies that they already possess. Noble Lords must understand that that is what is meant by this treaty and should not be bamboozled in any way by any pretence that the treaty is designed to curtail Euro-competence or to reverse the inexorable tide of European integration. That being so, it is essential that this House examines in great detail and at length the provisions of this Bill and the Amsterdam Treaty and should do so in the knowledge that the House of Commons severely curtailed debate through what I can only term a repressive guillotine.
Why on earth the Government wish to rush ratification through I simply do not know. It is extremely unlikely that all other countries will have ratified by the end of this year. Indeed the referendum in Denmark is not due until May. So why the undue rush to ratify this treaty? Is it perhaps to put pressure on the Danish voters? I sincerely hope it is not. If it is, it will be counter-productive.
The prime question that we have to ask about this Bill and treaty is whether they take us towards the oft repeated goal of both the Labour and Conservative Parties of a Europe as an alliance of independent nations, or towards further integration and "a country called Europe". Clearly it is not the former because the treaty accords additional powers and competencies to the various institutions of the European Union, especially through the extension of qualified majority voting and the expansion of the powers of the European Parliament and indeed of the Commission and its
70
president. That all points towards further integration. Therefore the treaty is integrationist and militates against the Europe of independent states.
It is, of course, being claimed that the new subsidiarity arrangements will limit the power of the European Union. My noble friend Lord Grenfell claimed exactly that. But that was what was claimed in 1992 when the then Prime Minister came back to us and said that he had won, "Game, set and match". That was about subsidiarity. We were promised at that time that 25 per cent. of Community laws would be repealed and powers returned to this Parliament and to national governments. However, that promise has not been kept. No laws have been repealed. Instead, new directives and regulations have continued to be churned out. Far from the new articles on subsidiarity reversing the present trend, they are likely to entrench the acquis communautaire and lead to further power transfers to the European Union and its institutions leading to a centralised European unitary state, not a federal state. That is what we are embarked upon. This idea that we are embarked upon a federation is completely wrong. What we are embarked upon is a new European unitary state. It will be centralised and indeed it will be bureaucratic.
During the later stages of the Bill we shall need to examine in great detail the provisions of this treaty. Like many other noble Lords I shall want to examine the revised arrangements relating to the police and judicial co-operation which will, I understand, erode in some way the inter-governmental nature of this particular title of the treaty and bring its operation closer to Community arrangements. Under these new arrangements, as I understand them, it would be quite possible for foreign police forces to operate in the United Kingdom without Parliament's consent or knowledge. Perhaps my noble friend would like to comment on that when he winds up.
I also understand that Article 35 of the treaty will expand the role of the European Court of Justice in relation to police and judicial co-operation. Yet I understood that the aim of government was to restrict the powers of the European Court of Justice, not to expand them. Indeed there is great danger in expanding them. We ought to look at Article 35(6) for example. According to some people, that article could undermine the rock upon which our unwritten constitution rests; namely, the doctrine that a Parliament cannot bind its successor. I shall certainly want to probe that article. I hope that the whole House will want to probe that article as it was not probed in another place. Perhaps when my noble friend winds up he could comment on that also.
We shall also need to examine in detail the new areas of decision by qualified majority voting. For every time we hand over a decision to QMV we weaken our veto and remove power from Parliament and the electors and hand it over to a polyglot conglomerate not answerable to them. Then, of course, there are the new powers to be handed to the European Parliament. My noble friend Lord Grenfell said that I did not like the European Parliament. He is absolutely right. I opposed the directly elected European Parliament in 1977 and because I was

71
not prepared to support it on Third Reading I resigned from the government. The noble Lord is absolutely right that I did not, and do not, approve of an elected European assembly. Far from being a democratic extension it is the reverse, because it removes power from the national parliaments, and this Parliament in particular. Of course they got that power through the extension of co-decision and the power to veto the appointment of the President of the Commission. People say that that is an extension of democracy. It is nothing of the kind because the European president will have been agreed by the heads of government, who have been elected by their own electors to their own national assemblies or parliaments. Therefore, again, the main body of electors will be ignored. So that is not an extension of democracy.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it depends which way one defines the democratic electorate? If one's view is that there is a European state, then the European Parliament represents all the people of that state, so it would be a democratic move. But if one takes the view that there are sovereign states, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, it would be an anti-democratic move. Surely that is where we are today. We have to decide whether we want a European state—democratic, bureaucratic or any kind—or we want to remain with the union of sovereign states. It is the issue which can no longer be fudged.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is absolutely correct.
Noble Lords: Oh‡
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches expect me to say anything different?
Noble Lords: No‡
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is right on the ball. We have to make up our minds whether we are to remain a self-governing nation state or whether we shall be absorbed into a country called Europe. That is the decision we shall eventually have to take.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we are not a nation state? The United Kingdom has never been a nation state. We are a united kingdom of several states. Under the noble Lord's own Government we are currently going through a set of constitutional reforms which will make us less a unitary state than we were.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, Wales has been part of the Union since 1536, I believe; and Scotland since 1707. That is a union which has stood the test of time. It has been extremely successful over a long period of time. I believe that it will continue to
72
succeed provided it remains united as a united kingdom. That does not apply to what is an artificial union called the European Union.
Perhaps I may return to my speech. Fortunately Section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 provides that no treaty which increases the powers of the European Parliament shall be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament. In the light of that section of the 1978 Act, we shall be able to scrutinise Clause 2 of the Bill very closely indeed. Those who framed that clause of the 1978 Bill were far seeing and knew what the Euro-mongers would get up to once they achieved an elected assembly.
And of course there is the power of the President of the Commission to reject commissioners appointed by national governments. This will virtually give him the right to select his own cabinet—a precursor perhaps of the coming conversion of the Commission to the de facto European Government so desired by some member states, the Commission itself and the power hungry European Parliament.
All the proposals in the Amsterdam Treaty are of vital importance and will need to be examined in detail. The proposal for a common foreign and security policy, which hands more influence over foreign affairs to the European Council and the Commission, especially to the bureaucrats, will need to be closely scrutinised to see whether that will undermine the principle that the foreign policy of this country exists to promote British interests. I sincerely hope that that will not be undermined by anything in the treaty.
It will also be interesting to know what would be the effect on our policy in Iraq at present if the Amsterdam arrangements were now in place. We shall be able, I believe, to examine in some detail economic and monetary union, and the stability pact arrangements. It will give us the opportunity to probe the Government's real thinking on the subject of EMU third stage and a single currency. I trust that a Treasury spokesman will be made available to deal with that subject.
This Second Reading has shown that the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty are not trivial but deal with matters of great moment for our country and people. This House must indeed do its duty well, and must consider, scrutinise and amend the Bill in such a way as to prevent yet further ceding of our sovereign powers to institutions alien to our traditional ways of self government and inimical to the best interests of the British people.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, began her speech some time ago by criticising my raising in this House a matter of its internal constitutional arrangements. The fact that this is an important issue has just been agreed to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I find it surprising that the noble Baroness should think that the House is wasting its time when it considers matters upon which it has, or could have, some influence and is not wasting its time when it is asked to listen for the umpteenth time,

73
if I may say so, to the familiar litany of the quisling tendency in this House which goes by the curious name of Liberal Democrat since its adherents all seem to believe in an institution which is neither liberal nor democratic.
The debate has nevertheless been useful. We have heard some important contributions, notably—I do not always agree with him—from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. It is a fact that the Amsterdam affair was supposed to advance the cause of European enlargement; and it clearly failed to do anything of the kind, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, because it would have to make changes which individual governments were not prepared to make.
Similarly, we are told that there has been some advance towards a common foreign and security policy. When one looks at the record of the European Union in that area, one wonders that even its most devoted advocates in this House raise that issue. What constructive role did the European Union play in Bosnia? I shall not go into the less than constructive role of certain member states. What has it been able to do with regard to the appalling events going on in Algeria—a country which is close to many member states and which treats with the utmost contempt any idea that the European Union can have a say in whether those massacres continue? There is not the slightest evidence at present that the countries of Europe have such common views on major policies that any institutional way of creating a single policy would do any good at all.
I am tempted to go further. The most troubling effect of the Amsterdam Conference could be to make people realise that perhaps the whole European Union enterprise was an error based upon an inadequate comprehension of the nature of Europe and its countries; and the effort on the part of certain members of the continental elite to create a single European state (for that is what it has been)—of which the absurd suggestion of a common currency, which flies in the face of all economic argument, is just the latest phase—has now brought home the fact that if we are to achieve (here is the one point upon which surely all noble Lords are agreed) a Europe of countries co-operating with each other in a friendly fashion, stretching at least up to the frontier of the Russian empire, we will have to start all over again. We will have to drop the idea that there can be law-making institutions of the type described. We will have to say that for a long time to come countries will need, unless they make their own arrangements to the contrary, to control their economic destinies, including their currency, interest rates and so forth; and, alas, that they will have to continue—and this is a pity—to restrict to some extent the free movement of people, which in the last resort is what we should like to have. Is it likely that any of the continental countries would in fact welcome the kind of free movement that makes possible the American economy with a single currency and a single market? Why live in a world of illusions? Why not try to tackle matters about which something could be done?
I agree—as I must occasionally—with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that we are considerably at fault, so far as I know, in our treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. But that is a matter to which the Government could give their own attention. They
74
could put more civil servants on to dealing with that crucial issue rather than tangling them up in various European notions, experiments, review bodies and so forth. There are practical things which could be done and which a government could do but which are neglected because of the absurd belief that somehow or other a thing that has clearly gone wrong will suddenly be put right.
There has been talk of the European Parliament "filling the democratic deficit". What do people in this country think the European Parliament is? They know that it is a body which builds itself enormous and expensive palaces. Saddam Hussein has nothing on the European Parliament when it comes to architecture and comfort. They know that, for reasons of national state bargaining, it is compelled to take its circus once a month all the way from Brussels to Strasbourg and start all over again. People do not regard the European Parliament as a serious body capable of filling a democratic deficit. They know something about their own parliaments. They may think that they are good or bad, or that the wrong party is in power. But, fundamentally, nearly all member states (there are one or two exceptions) have serious democratic and liberal institutions. Let us build on those, and not be carried away by empty rhetoric.
That was fine when Jean Monnet was alive and Europe was finding some way out of the depths into which the Second World War had plunged it, but it is of no possible relevance to the kind of economy, society and countries that we now are. At least our debates on this minimal, rather than modest, treaty will give us a chance to examine some of these serious issues.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I welcomed his constitutional intervention. It was good for us to stop and think about an appropriate response to this treaty. While I voted against the noble Lord's Motion, it was nevertheless good to have the issue discussed. It may also have a good unintended consequence. The only way for the Government to get out of the problem is for them immediately to promote my noble friend Lord Whitty to the status of Minister, because he alone can pilot this Bill through its Committee and Report stages. It was a particular pleasure to hear him introduce the Bill. I remember—although my noble friend may wish to forget—the day after the 1992 election when, at half-past four in the morning, we were wandering along some building on Millbank and we embraced each other in a forlorn way. At that time there was absolutely no hope. Little did we think that in a few years' time he would, quite properly and deservedly, be leading for the Government on such an important issue. I very much welcome his being there and arguing this case.
I am in the peculiar position of being neither a Euro-sceptic nor a satisfied enthusiast. I am a disappointed enthusiast. When the issue was under discussion in 1973, I was not in Parliament but was just an ordinary citizen. I had no doubt that Sir Edward Heath was fudging the issue. I clearly saw that. I was a

75
federalist—perhaps even worse, a unitarian. I thought that we were entering Europe because within my lifetime there would be a European parliament, possibly with two chambers, that that European parliament would elect a cabinet and that that cabinet would run Europe. That is what I believed would happen. That is what I mean by a federal Europe; I have no other definitions. So it was a surprise to me to learn that people genuinely thought it to be a matter of a common market, a Europe of nation states with sovereignty and so on. I was young then. As I grow up, I become more disillusioned with the way in which the world fails to follow my instincts. I voted yes in the referendum. At the time I was in a small minority of pro-Europeans in the Labour Party.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is entirely correct. What happened was that, following the Single European Act, somehow the whole process got speeded up—quite unnecessarily so. The European Community is not yet a single market. Before it can become a single market—which should have been allowed to happen over more than just four or five years; merely to pass the laws takes more than four or five years, and more time is needed to create a single market—it started jumping onto the single currency bandwaggon. And before the single currency is even in operation, there is the question of enlargement. As I said, I am a disappointed enthusiast. Not much reference has been made to this, but the spectre which haunts this debate is the Edinburgh Summit. That summit stopped the federal European experiment in its tracks and it has never since gained momentum. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, does not wish to take the credit for his government's achievement.
We are about to embark on a single currency. Let us for the time being suppose that it goes ahead. It is generally agreed that, if there is a single currency and different economies, what economists call asymmetric shocks will cost somebody a lot of money. Ideally that body should be the federal European Union budget. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit: if you want a single currency, you should have a single state. There should be no messing about. People who used to be communautaire have taken the view that we should have a single currency, but with a ceiling on the budget of 1.27 per cent. I think it unlikely that the unspent part of the 1.27 per cent. could be devoted to enlargement. Countries have already said: "If you have unspent money, we want it back".
Since the Edinburgh Summit, major countries have behaved in a completely non-communautaire fashion. This train is not getting anywhere; it may yet do so, but at the moment it is not. The Amsterdam Treaty is a perfect example of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, gave a wonderful maiden speech, with much of which I agree. Like him, I am a purist, and I do not like what is going on. Perhaps the Union will never be as I should like it to be. But the Amsterdam Treaty was meant to solve a lot of problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said, the intergovernmental conference which preceded it utterly and completely failed; it did not solve a single problem that it was supposed to solve. Therefore
76
enlargement looms. I am sure that noble Lords know my view on enlargement: I believe it is a disaster. But, if we are to have enlargement, there should long ago have been preparation in the form of institutional and budgetary changes and budgetary enlargement.
Here we have an experiment, which has unfortunately stalled, in which there are three problems: single market, single currency and enlargement. Individual, powerful countries are no longer behaving in a co-operative fashion with regard to those problems but in a divided fashion. For example, preparations to meet the convergence conditions of the Maastricht Treaty have been carried out by governments in beggar my-neighbour separate economic deflationary policies. There has been no co-operation whatever between Germany, France and Italy about how they could together meet the convergence criteria. The result is that, as my noble friend Lord Bruce said, unemployment will grow. That is protectionist behaviour.
I should love to believe, as the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe, that the train is still moving happily towards its destination. I do not believe it is moving anywhere. However, perhaps to the annoyance of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I should welcome it if the European Parliament, such as it is, had more power. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I believe that the European Parliament is a democratic institution. I would rather that the European Parliament should decide who the president of the Commission should be than have the bickering between members of the European Council or the Council of Europe. As we saw on the previous occasion, that does not produce the best president but the one who is least disliked, for completely dubious reasons. I should like the president of the Commission to be popularly elected—that might be rather fun—but with, as the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, said, a second chamber which would represent national parliaments.
This is a modest and not very consequential treaty. Why do I think that? I remember the Second Reading debate on the Maastricht Treaty which ran to two days. I remember that at 1.30 in the morning the 124th speaker from the Back Benches—the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—spoke. One hundred and fifty Members were in the Chamber. The Maastricht Treaty mattered. This treaty does not matter. However, let us wish it luck and get it out of the way so that we can turn our attention to something serious.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as I inflicted my views on the Amsterdam Treaty on your Lordships' House when we debated this rather uninspiring treaty on 28th July, I shall confine myself to three detailed points on the treaty and the legislation before us. I apologise that, for unavoidable reasons, I may not be present to hear all the speeches at the end of the debate.
The three issues I wish briefly to discuss are subsidiarity, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred; the stability pact, which was engineered at Amsterdam and is not strictly in the treaty or the Bill

77
but lies behind both; and the question of common foreign and security policy, which seems to be in deep trouble at the moment.
On the subsidiarity issue, like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I have a sense of disappointment. We were told at the time of Maastricht that this would be the great thing; that Maastricht was a turning point and from then on there would be an unravelling of the undue acquisition of central powers by the Community—in some cases, high officials admitted, unnecessary powers—and that there would be a process of unwinding these and in future directives examining them most carefully to see if they were necessary at all at Community level. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, not very much has happened. Even before the Amsterdam Treaty only one directive, on the management of zoos, was examined to see whether it could be delegated back to the nation states, but that is about it. In this treaty and this Bill we see that, far from the whole subsidiarity idea being carried forward, it is undoubtedly, and to my great regret, carried back. In Protocol 30 to the treaty all kinds of new hedging conditions are laid down, almost as though the high officials concerned with drafting these treaties have discovered that, unless corralled, subsidiarity could, after all, be quite a dangerous instrument in taking power from the centre.
It may be said that those who believed that subsidiarity could deliver the goods were naïve, too dutiful or too anxious to support the government of the day. I plead guilty to all three weaknesses at times. What I now read in Protocol 30 makes me realise that even what we have is being taken away. We are told in Protocol 30 that subsidiarity must not affect the acquis. All acquired powers cannot be unravelled even when the pattern of Europe changes, the Berlin wall falls and the world is completely different. The acquis is absolutely sacred and cannot be affected by subsidiarity. We are told that it must not affect the principles by which the Court of Justice chooses to uphold Community law. That is taking a huge sledgehammer to the subsidiarity belief in the hope that either as a legal principle or a political one—there is a debate as to which it is—some of the centralist tendencies of earlier years in the Community and the Union, when economies were totally differently structured and the behaviour of economies was different, could now be unwound in the new conditions of the information society which did not exist when the original institutions of the Community were fabricated.
We are told that subsidiarity must not call into question the powers of the European Community—a second sledgehammer blow in the same place. It must not apply where the Community has exclusive competence. That means that at no point can one re-examine issues and question whether it would have been better if they had been handled at national and supranational level. The curtain is down on that as well. Subsidiarity is not to intrude ever again into those areas.
There are some mitigating sops to the subsidiarity case. It says in the protocol that care should be taken to respect well-established national arrangements. Some of us would argue that not enough care is taken. But that
78
is the sad story of subsidiarity. Those who believe that it is a marvellous treaty and that subsidiarity is a good thing I am afraid are riding two horses travelling in opposite directions. The truth is that centralism rules in the protocol. I used to argue with my friends in the Labour Party—socialists—many of whom said that we could have socialism without state centralism, without state socialism; it could be done. I believe that it is possible to have good Europeanism without centralism. However, the people who put their signature to Protocol 30 do not believe that and did not like the tendency of those of us who were arguing the other way.
I want to say a word on the stability pact and monetary union. Again, it is not directly covered by the legislation before us but obviously lies at the heart of the debate. Amsterdam marks the final preparations for the third stage of EMU on 1st January 1999. There are a great many anxieties felt about that and I have many also.
I hear what my noble friend Lord Tebbit says about sovereignty. Of course he is right. It is absolute; either we have it or we do not, in the literal, fundamental sense. But operational sovereignty on the monetary front has been drifting away from independent nation states for years and the drift has now accelerated. If we put forward too much of an argument about sovereignty in relation to the monetary union issues, we shall get on to the wrong track. The operational sovereignty was taken away. From the days of the gold standard we have not had operational sovereignty in the monetary field.
The real problem with monetary union is that it will be impossible to guarantee the right exchange rates at the moment of freezing them on 1st January. No one has the least idea what the right rates will be for the three years ahead and it will be a dangerous time. There will be the task of managing 12 currencies—assuming that there are 11 members of the currency zone, which is not an optimal zone anyway—the euro being the new one. Huge technical monetary problems will arise. They may be boring and people may not want to understand them, but they will be extremely destabilising.
Given the obvious lack of convergence—except in the fudged Maastricht criteria sense—there will be immediate adverse consequences. We will not have to wait for the first big downturn in the European economies. The present recovery is faltering somewhat and the impact of the single currency problem over the next three years on the faltering European economies will be extremely serious. In my view the stability pact—desperate rearguard action by the Germans to try and plug the gap that they suddenly realised existed in the monetary union system—will be blown away by the fiscal expansion of governments determined to stay in office and not be thrown out by having to pursue policies of growing unpopularity with ever-rising unemployment.
We will debate that on another day. Let me turn to the common foreign and security policy. I want to say just a word or two on that. I hope to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who speaks with great authority on these matters and we heard a trailer of that. But these are my thoughts on the situation.

79
This is an area where there is a major expansion of policy in Title 5 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It goes into considerable detail. It is also an area where, in the past, the enthusiasts for pooling sovereignty made quite a splash. They have always said, "This is the area where we will create Europe as a bloc; it will be able to throw its weight around. This is the state of Europe in the new world of super powers and super blocs and this is the pool we want to be in". Almost a sea of solidarity was conjured up by the enthusiasts for a common foreign and security policy.
The treaty tries to reinforce the whole pattern, the whole framework of a common foreign and security policy. It requires members to refrain from actions which impair cohesiveness. It asks them to decide on common strategies. It insists that they ensure that national policies conform to common positions. It insists that common policy should embrace humanitarian, rescue tasks, peace-keeping and peace enforcement. The Bill is an extremely ambitious document and if one believed for a moment that any of those things could be delivered other than on paper, that would create a pooled entity—a powerful European bloc which would be a great force in the world.
That is the theory, but what is the practice? The practice is what we see before us and to what my noble friend referred. We only have to look over the past week or 10 days to see the reality. The practice is that, faced with a real issue of a humanitarian nature—what could be more humanitarian than trying to control a maniac in the Middle East with powers of anthrax spore?—faced with a major strategic issue of world stability, the whole thing falls apart. France goes in one direction; the Germans give grudging support from the sidelines; there is silent embarrassment from other members of the European Union; and the British go along strongly with the American stance. Indeed, the only robust support for the common policy that emerged is from the eastern European countries. They are not yet even members—Poland, Czechoslovakia and the gallant Baltic three. They uttered strong words saying that they are ready to support a serious common policy to deal with Saddam Hussein.
What has happened is not merely that common foreign and security policy has failed to deliver on this issue; it has done more than that. It has greatly damaged the credibility of the European Union as a force in foreign affairs. There are a number of issues where European Union countries can work well together and should do so in a trans-governmental setting. That is the way that they should and can operate effectively. However, if we build up this attempt to impose a common foreign policy on issues where there can be no common line or where, as soon as we get down to the realities, national interests intervene and divide, we end up with a worse situation than when we started. If we build up, then when there is failure everything is let down; discredit emerges; failure of diplomacy emerges and the world and Europe are set back by the over-ambitious attempt to create too much unity where none can exist.
80
Common issues, yes; trans-governmental handling of those issues of an intense kind, certainly, all the time; but the attempt to supranationalise foreign policy was going to be a failure from the start. If pursued through this treaty and this Bill, it will lead to more failures, more damage and more disunity in Europe which deeply offends those of us who regard ourselves as good Europeans.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I had not intended to refer to the specific issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. However, I want to take him up on what he said with regard to the period of difficulty in managing what he called 12 different currencies for the three years after 1st January 1999.
I agree that there is possibly some problem in relation to the period between May, when the announcement is made of what the currencies will be converted at, and 1st January 1999, but after 1st January 1999 the position will be the very opposite of the ERM. The noble Lord spoke of managing 12 different currencies. There will not be 12 different currencies. There will not be an exchange rate between the Deutschmark and the French franc; in fact, we will have one currency with different names in different countries. The European Central Bank will operate under a system which admittedly has the fairly unattractive name of "complete fungibility" so that all electronic and financial system transactions will be treated as though they were in euros. The problem therefore of managing the currencies within that period does not exist.
However, I want in the course of my remarks to return to what in some ways has been to many speakers the central issue of the debate. I refer to the question of sovereignty, which arouses many passions. I enjoyed the provocative remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who is not now in his place. It certainly aroused him to passion, although he spoke with his usual courtesy, moderation and tolerance.
I want to look at sovereignty, particularly in relation to qualified majority voting. Qualified majority voting has been of enormous benefit to this country. We would never have got the single market without it; we would never have got agreement to the Uruguay Round without it; and we would have no chance of further reforming the common agricultural policy without it. Indeed, some useful reforms have been made entirely because of qualified majority voting. It is also central to enlargement.
Perhaps the strongest argument for qualified majority voting was, perhaps surprisingly, put by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whose courtesy for remaining in his place throughout the debate I appreciate. He put the point extremely well. He said, "Look what happened when the question came up about the opt-in to Schengen? He said, "Monstrously, the Government did not favour qualified majority voting but allowed unanimity to prevail". He pointed to the obstacle which exists when one has unanimity—someone can exercise a veto, and the veto can be used as a bargaining point for all kinds of undesirable consequences. He argued

81
that we must not allow Spain to have a veto. But what applies in the case of Schengen applies all the way round. If we have confidence in ourselves, we should be confident about qualified majority voting, because on nearly every occasion we have been in the majority.
Indeed, it was welcome to find that the United Kingdom supported the extension of qualified majority voting to a number of new areas. Perhaps the most important were the structure of research, development and employment. It is also reasonable that at this stage it should not be extended to matters like foreign policy and defence. I am somewhat sorry that the Government dug in their heels over immigration because in the long run it is certainly in our interests to have a common immigration policy. After all, if someone achieves residence through the local immigration policy of another country, he has a right to come to this country. If we have no say over other countries' immigration policies, we effectively abandon control over our own.
What is perhaps most noteworthy about the discussions on qualified majority voting at Amsterdam was the surprising attitude of the Germans. In the past Chancellor Kohl has been very much a strong advocate of a federal Europe. I am a great admirer of Chancellor Kohl. I am delighted that he is to be the first foreigner since Eisenhower to be given the keys to the City of London. That is a magnificent and imaginative gesture. He is the most anti-nationalist politician in Europe. He is determined to see that there should not be through German strength a German roof over Europe but a European roof over Germany. He is a man I much admire, although I would not go all the way with his aim of a federal Europe. While I have no objection to it in principle, it seems to me to be not practical politics.
The Germans took a surprising attitude. I quote from a very good book about the Amsterdam Treaty, which I commend to Members on the Conservative Benches, written by two very eminent Conservatives, Brendan Donnelly, MEP, and Anthony Teasdale. They describe very well what happened. They state:
"The Germans, in a dramatic and last-minute volte face, decided to oppose QMV in environment, industry, free movement of persons, social security and culture, for example, because of resistance from the Laender … They also opposed the automatic use of QMV in the JHA [justice and home affairs] pillar, previously a firm Bonn goal. As one German participant wryly observed: 'one form of federalism took precedence over another'".
What we saw at Amsterdam was the high tide of federalism; or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was right, and it was reached earlier at Edinburgh.
This is in some ways to be deplored because it makes enlargement more difficult. One will now need a new treaty to deal with the complex institutional questions bound up with enlargement. That will create considerable difficulties. But what it does mean is that it is the end of the idea of the threat of a superstate. Not only is the UK opposed to it; not only has France been opposed to it throughout; but now Germany has abandoned the aim. You can have qualified majority voting without a superstate but you certainly cannot have a superstate without qualified majority voting. You cannot have a superstate if the national veto is retained.
82
The Germans actually argued at Amsterdam for the retention of the veto, a point that has not been noticed—or at least has been noticed, but not by many.
I wish to return to the question of more flexible integration. We have talked about a multi-speed Europe, a two-speed Europe, a Europe à la carte, and variable geometry. The issue now is one of flexible integration. In December 1995 Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac called for a new treaty clause to allow for greater flexibility. It was more or less accepted at Amsterdam that it should be decided on by qualified majority voting, but not if important and stated reasons of national policy were involved. So, on the face of it, again the veto applies. But no one seems quite clear how it will work out.
The test of this is the Euro-X committee, which is clearly an important committee. I think it is a desirable committee for the reasons given by the noble Lord. Lord Desai—one wants to see much better co-ordination of fiscal policy but one does not wish the whole of anti-inflation policy in Europe to be decided only by the bankers. I welcome the establishment of the Euro-X committee. But what is clear is that if some people want to go off to decide things on their own, they will do so. Although formally the decisions have to be taken by ECOFIN, in practice they will be decided by the Euro-X committee. The four non-member states of monetary union will have to accept what the others have decided. In effect, we will have flexible integration.
While we are outside monetary union we will suffer a major loss of sovereignty over issues of the greatest importance to us. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others who have spoken claim that they are concerned about sovereignty. What sovereignty means is having effective control over your own affairs. What in fact they are seeking to preserve is nothing less than a shadow and an illusion. The only way in which we will achieve sovereignty over the issues that really affect us is to find ourselves at the heart of Europe when the important decisions are taken.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I remember when I was young that the villains of the political scene were the Gnomes of Zurich—nameless, rather unidentifiable people who were somehow conspiring to bring our country to its knees. Well, time passed and they did not seem really to have been quite the threat that they were portrayed to be at the time. But they seem now to have been superseded by the Brussels "federasts", who are closeted somewhere inside the Berlaymont building, waiting to take over this country and to subsume it in some single centralised European state.
On the occasions when I have been abroad to the various countries of the Community and to Brussels I have met some of these Euro-centralisers. But there really are not very many of them. The vast majority of citizens of European countries, like the citizens of this country, do not want a single European state. What they want to see is a political system that is based around the nation state but which operates within a transnational, or some type of supranational, system, which eliminates

83
the intrusive and damaging effects of borders, barriers and restrictions that get in the way of improved communications, telecommunications and the mobility of goods, services, people and capital, all of which offer considerable opportunities, benefits and advantages to the citizens of this country and the other member states. The European Community is an effort to try to bring that about. I am clear in my mind that it is wrong to see it in terms of whether Europe is a state because I believe that it is sui generis; it is a unique political experiment. The debate we are having is about the detail of how one achieves all this.
It seems to me that this is an example of something which is happening much more widely around the globe. We are seeing the development and evolution of a new politico-diplomatic order which affects not only Europe but the whole of the globe. These changes are essentially systemic. They may be party political, but I do not believe they are inherently ideological.
Unlike a number of distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, I am neither a diplomat nor an historian. But I understand it is generally accepted that the story of classical diplomacy began in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia. The era that began then came to an end at the time of the First World War. Whether the war was the cause of that ending or whether it was merely symptomatic of the changes that caused it to happen, I do not want to speculate, although I suspect that it may have been the latter.
But what is clear is that, if one looks at the history of this century, there has been extraordinary instability and uncertainty about the rules that govern the relationships both between countries and between people doing business between countries across not only the countries of western Europe, but around the globe. As we know, a lot of blood has been spilled.
Obviously, one of the changes which we have seen is the development of the European Community and its subsequent evolution into the European Union. During the debate that we have in this and other countries about what is going on, I believe that insufficient attention is being paid to the effect of these systemic changes on the processes and responsibilities which remain member state competences and which at first sight are clearly, legally outside Community or Union competence.
I should like to give two examples. The first one was triggered by the distinguished maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell in the debate in this House not so long ago. He referred to the beginnings of co-operation in common, foreign and security policy going back to the days of European political co-operation. What was happening was that there were changes occurring informally outside the treaty in response to a perceived need by the participants in the negotiations.
Secondly, I should like to refer to my own experiences in the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, where I was the Conservative representative between 1989 and 1994. In the period prior to the Maastricht Treaty we devoted a great deal of our attention to the activities which are currently
84
contained in the third pillar. I give one example. The reason was that, if one has a single market and if there is not a simple, user-friendly system to gain redress when something goes wrong with a transaction, the system is not serving the citizen and it is not being very user friendly.
I was very interested in some evidence given to Sub-committee F by Customs and Excise. It explained how, prior to the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty coming into effect, a series of provisions and arrangements had developed informally, which seamlessly transferred themselves into the formal procedures that were put in place once the treaty came into effect. In each of these instances the existence of the Community fundamentally affected the way that member states dealt with each other on business which was important to them and which was outside the scope of the treaties. Informal systems evolved. Unless one wants one's own country to be an international wallflower, it has to participate in them. What we have seen in this case is development from informal systems into the second and third pillars, which, while inter-governmental, are clearly very different from the inter-governmentalism of classical diplomacy.
I should now like to look forward to one further future example, and that is EMU. I do not want to offer any views about whether or not we should or might participate. I should merely like to point out that it seems that, whatever one's views about that aspect of the matter, there is more or less complete unanimity that whatever happens—if anything happens—it is going to affect this country very significantly.
From these examples I make two specific points and point out the relevance they might have to the consideration of this Bill. First, I do not find it surprising, if one thinks about it, that, just as the nation state evolved in the past, it is now evolving, and will continue to evolve, in the future. We must recognise that in considering what the future holds for us. Secondly, I am sure that saying no is no assurance of retaining the status quo.
We have heard it on a number of occasions this evening. It is said that the problem of the Community is that there is a lack of democracy. In the sense a democratic system is one where power is exercised legitimately, according to the strict tenets of representative democracy, the system we have is entirely legitimate, albeit in a number of respects unfamiliar to us because it is based on ways of doing things which are widespread and recognised elsewhere in other member states. I believe that the real problem is a lack of transparency and accountability. Again, I refer to the work that we have been doing on Sub-committee F. It is not at all easy to discover exactly what is going on under the third pillar and neither is it necessarily very easy to see who it is who is taking the various decisions.
We have heard reference to the European Parliament this evening and, en passant, to its building and architectural aspirations. One does not have to cross the Channel to see a Parliament building an expensive new building: one has only to cross the road. Perhaps

85
the principal role of the European Parliament in the structure of the Community as a whole is to bring the Commission to account. There is no other institution in the system currently constituted to do that. Of course, it is easy to laugh at the European Parliament because it is very good at advertising some of its follies. But let us not forget that it actually contains a number of very eminent people who make a significant contribution to the good of all countries within the Community. In particular, it is its role as the scrutineer of the Commission that we should emphasise and encourage.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the reservations that we have on these Benches about signing up to the Social Chapter. I do not want to rehearse those again at this time of the evening. I merely ask the Minister if he can tell the House, in the context of social policy, whether there are any indicators or some kind of test that the Government will apply to determine what matters are properly dealt with at Community level and what matters ought properly to be left at member state level.
I believe that, in considering the way we respond both to the constitutional changes that we are seeing within the European Union and to the policies that may emerge from them, we must continue at all times to be realistic and pragmatic. We are living at a time of great change in the way the nations of the world and their citizens conduct business with each other. We must not be mesmerised by what was done in the past. Rather, we must try to build systems which will meet the aspirations of people in the 21st century instead of practices current in the 19th century. Those systems must serve the citizen and not the other way around.
Simply saying no cannot preserve the status quo. Saying no may be as emphatic a means of launching a policy as saying yes. If we do not really know for sure what to do, it does not automatically follow that the right response is to be negative. I believe, perhaps more than ever before, that we must keep in mind Bismarck's famous maxim, which was taken by that great Conservative Rab Butler, as the title for his autobiography: namely, "Politics is the art of the possible".
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put one question to him? He claimed that the European Commission and all those at Berlaymont are not the fanatical centralisers that Euro-sceptics imagine them to be. If that is the case, why do they resist so fiercely, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, even the slightest rolling back of the acquis communautaire?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not think that it is for me to respond to that point. However, if the noble Lord were to go to Berlaymont and speak to those who work there, he would find that the view which is held is mine rather than his. Furthermore, the noble Lord is referring to the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which was a child of the intergovernmental conference.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Whitty on the way in
86
which he introduced this debate, which has been fascinating and illuminating. I must also express my gratitude to him for his significant work over the years in contributing to moving European affairs forward.
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister on his performance at Amsterdam last June. By any standards, the British delegation came away from Amsterdam not only with a treaty which is reasonable in safeguarding British national interests but, importantly, having raised British standing in European eyes. The Prime Minister impressed our European partners with the fact that Britain wants to be at the heart of Europe and to be giving a lead rather than be seen to be negative, as has been the case so often in the past.
That is not to say that all that was aimed for at Amsterdam was delivered. It was not. The issues of enlargement and of institutional reform were deferred, or even possibly postponed. However, deferment on such topics is not unusual or even surprising. Reform and modernisation of power structures do not come easily, as we know only too well in these Houses. Recalling some of the contributions that have been made today by noble Lords who in some respects are pro-Europe but list the long catalogue of obstacles which have to be overcome—I refer particularly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—one wonders whether, even if we could define where we were going, we would ever get there. There is a long haul ahead of us. I believe that many people shout and scream too quickly their concerns about a project which is still a long way from being embraced.
There were some beneficial changes in the Amsterdam Treaty. Modest though some may seem to be, they are very important indeed for a significant number of our citizens. I refer specifically to the Government ending the opt-out from the social chapter, as it is loosely called. I first remind those who oppose the ending of the UK Maastricht opt-out that it was an explicit manifesto commitment—not only on the part of the Labour Party but also for the Liberal Democrats. If any question is raised about the extent to which there was a popular vote for ending that opt-out, the question should not be addressed purely on the basis of the Labour Party's vote; we should take into account also the votes cast for the Liberal Democrat Party. Taken together, they show a substantial majority voting in favour of what the Government did at Amsterdam.
The British people were wise not only to support the ending of that opt-out, but also to ignore the many scare stories that were engineered around not only the opt-out but the minimum wage which it was said would lead to possible job losses. We were told that difficulties would arise also from equal pay. Threats abounded about pensions being interfered with as a result of changes being made following the opt-out.
We must bear in mind not only the general election result but the fact that opinion polls show that our citizens want more social policy, not less. It is important that this change which the Government have introduced is recorded and welcomed—although I recognise that not all noble Lords would support that view.

87
I would argue that social policy is an integral part of the European internal market. It sets down minimum conditions to help to establish a level playing field. National measures can, of course, be introduced further to improve those conditions if individual countries choose to do so under subsidiarity.
Those of us who are in favour of European development and closer co-operation would not wish to engage in the beggar-my-neighbour spiral of competing on the basis of ever-decreasing levels of social protection. We want to compete on the basis of quality and value added. In my experience, that is achieved by having a well informed, well trained and fairly remunerated workforce—a workforce which one hopes will be in employment which is as safe and secure as is possible in the economic circumstances of the late 1990s.
I turn to the measures already agreed under the social chapter. The only one in operation so far is the European Works Councils Directive. Even before the election, dozens of British companies were setting up European works councils, including representatives of British workers. Can any of them really say that informing and consulting their workforces has made them uncompetitive, either before the election or subsequently?
We are expecting the Parental Leave Directive to come into force soon, then that on the reversal of the burden of proof in equal pay cases, and then that giving part-time workers some equivalent rights to their full-time colleagues. Again, that issue has aroused anxiety in some quarters, but those who believe in fairness and equity can only seek to see it put into place.
In the foreseeable future, there may be a directive extending some rights to workers on fixed-term contracts, and perhaps also on measures on providing information to, and consultation of, workers not only at the European level but also at the national level. I know that in some quarters the last item could be regarded as controversial, but we should not in this country be nervous about proposals for a basic right for workers to information and consultation. Why should two such simple principles be a burden on business when they are essential components of any good business or public or voluntary organisation?
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the employment title because the Amsterdam Treaty gives new prominence to employment. The promotion of a high level of employment is made one of the Union's objectives in Article B (TEU), and the promotion of competitiveness is added to the Community's tasks alongside the existing task of promoting a high level of employment. I do not see how anyone can rationally object to working towards,
"developing a coordinated strategy for employment and particularly for promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and labour markets responsive to economic change".
Those words, from Article 109n (now Article 125), were negotiated by the Prime Minister as part of the treaty at Amsterdam. They are the essence of the European social model as a developing entity.
88
Much of the employment title is already being put into practice, even before the treaty comes into force. The Special European Council on Employment held in Luxembourg last November agreed employment guidelines for member states. The main headings are, first, improving employability; secondly, developing entrepreneurship; thirdly, encouraging adaptability of businesses and their employees; and, fourthly, strengthening equal opportunity policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to that point earlier.
Work on a national employment action plan is already under way here, with the TUC and the CBI co-operating particularly on issues of training, work experience, traineeships and the development of lifelong learning. The employment title is encouraging a practical approach so that the various member states can learn best employment practices from each other. Of course, it will not replace national employment policies—it is not designed to do so—but there is a European dimension which it rightly recognises. I believe that Britain can show the way.
Finally, on a broader and more general issue, I was born during the last war and since then I have had the happy experience of living in a country that has not been scarred by any European war. I thank God for that. I also thank the European movement for being principally responsible for delivering that. For those who ask us to think again about European partnership and co-operation in order to live and work together more closely, I ask them to pause before they embark upon a venture into the unknown. They are no clearer as to what the future holds for them than those of us who struggle to make a better Europe. I believe that the evidence of peace over the past 50 years is a strong testament in historical terms that we should not case aside lightly before we move in any other direction.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with great interest. I simply say that NATO has had something to do with keeping the peace over the past 50 years.
No one would deny that, like the Maastricht Treaty before it, this treaty has moved yet further into qualified majority voting and the abandonment of the national veto in more and more areas of decision. It is a manifestation of the growing power of the Commission and its institutions and the growing loss of national power. All the right noises are being made, and we have congratulated ourselves on putting subsidiarity high on the agenda, improving scrutiny and securing greater transparency and accountability in the operation of the institutions. The new Article 6–3 says that the Union shall respect the national identities of its member states. On subsidiarity Protocol 30(2) however requires that the application of the principle of subsidiarity,
"shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance",
and should take into account Article 6(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means to attain its objectives and

89
carry through policies. That objective, as Article 1 states, is creating an ever-closer Union. The Protocol requires that Community measures,
"should leave as much scope for national decision as possible, consistent with securing the aim of measure and observing the requirements of the Treaty".
Member states on the other hand are,
"required to abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty."
Article 12 requires them to work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity and refrain from any act which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
What concerns me is that the assumption throughout seems to be that the Commission at the top decides what it will do and the nation states at the bottom are expected to conform. It is surely wholly unlikely that the interests of so many states can possibly coincide. This is particularly true in the case of structural cohesion funds. I do not find it reassuring that no fewer than seven directorates of the Commission, not just Directorate XVI responsible for regional policy and cohesion, are closely involved in the administration of the scheme and the funds. There is an immense proliferation of Community initiatives (CIs), Community support frameworks (CSFs), single programming documents (SPDs) and four different funds in the structural funds. The Committee of the Regions seems to be becoming even more powerful. There is now a new provision in Article 265 requiring the Committee of the Regions to be consulted by the Council and the Commission in appropriate cases,
"in particular, those which concern cross-border cooperation".
What are the implications of this for Northern Ireland? I should like to know.
The structural and cohesion funds and the whole infrastructure of directorates, committees and special funds will be a major issue when it comes to enlargement. Where is the money to come from? Is there effective national access to knowledge about projects, and how the money is spent? There is only too much evidence of expensive and often incompetent bureaucracy and an absence of machinery for accountability. I find nothing in the treaty to reassure me that national parliaments yet have adequate means to control what happens now. Without effective scrutiny, and time to intervene and argue before decisions are taken, and without effective access to information, things can only get worse not better.
At least we have a six-week scrutiny period, which is something. Satisfaction has been expressed that there is now an explicit proviso for transparency over the work of the committees which serve and advise the Commission. In 1995 the EU budget provided for a total of 333 committees established under the comitology procedure. It was estimated that 20,000 people served on them, quite apart from a legion of other special advisers and experts. The work of these committees, for instance when they concern scientific matters, is not open to peer review and their work forms the basis for important decisions. The existing Council decision
90
defining the use of delegated powers by the Commission says that on the issue of transparency each committee has its own rule of procedure and this needs to be consulted to determine each committee's scope for openness. Article 255 in the new treaty says that each institution shall elaborate in its own rule of procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents. I cannot see any change for the better, though there is also a reference to,
"general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing right of access to documents shall be determined by the Council within 2 years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam".
Under Article 207 the Council is to define the cases in which it is regarded as acting in its legislative capacity with a view to allowing greater access to documents while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of its decision-making process.
I am torn between some horror at the prospects of all the vast mountains of undigested paper, all translated into or out of some 15 languages, descending on the unfortunate Whitehall departments and Parliament and concern about the decisions being taken daily under the comitology system about which we know nothing. The system provides no accountability. If the Council decides to deal with an issue through a regulatory comitology committee it need never come near Parliament. Who decides whether something is a core issue or a technical matter?
In the written evidence to the 1996 Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference (HL Paper 88) there were disquieting references to the fact that the Commission had tended to abrogate to itself through closed committees of national experts the responsibility for detailed implementation of EU legislation. The intention may have been to simplify and speed up decision-making, but it ends up opaque and undemocratic. What are we to make of a system where the manual of operational procedure concerning complaints is published in French only and is so confidential that it is simply for internal use? Another example given in the evidence was food hygiene where,
"important steps can be taken under the directives on the basis of Comitology, away from the gaze of Parliament and Council, and to some extent of the food industry".
A similar example was given in evidence before a House of Lords committee on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the third pillar (HL 25) where it was said that the memorandum of understanding on the legal interception of communication was not deemed to be an appropriate document for scrutiny and deposit and the agenda of the K4 Committee was deemed too confidential to be made available in advance to national parliaments. Incidentally, the same principle is not expected to apply in reverse.
In the declaration on the establishment of a policy planning and early warning unit under that new creation, the High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the unit will produce policy option papers at the request of the Council or the Presidency or on its own initiative. The declaration says that,
"member states and the Commission shall assist … by providing, to the fullest extent possible, relevant information, including confidential information".

91
One of the great secret weapons of the Commission is the proliferation of Brussels-speak. We have joint action, common positions, the Community method, flexibility and constructive abstention, which seems to be a new way of saying no. The power of the Parliament has been significantly increased by further application of the co-decision procedure which is also fairly arcane. "Common positions", incidentally, represents a further strengthening of Community powers in that,
"Council shall adopt common positions. Common positions shall define the approach of the Union to a particular matter of geographical or thematic nature. Member states shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions".
However, if these policies are to be defined by for instance the new policy planning and early warning unit it will be interesting to see how many months after a crisis the common position will emerge, if it ever does.
Your Lordships will understand that I am far from reassured by the proliferation of new tasks and institutions, the slowly tightening bindweed in which we are entangled and the failure to address the serious institutional questions of how effectively to control a vast, unwieldy octopus and how to finance enlargement, although Agenda 2000 does begin to do this. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand those who can reconcile a drive towards devolution within the. British Isles, where the people are in general homogenous, and towards unravelling the Union, with an apparent readiness to give more and more power to an unaccountable, non-elected series of central institutions which are far more alien in culture.
I can accept partnership but not a takeover bid. I think, too, with grief about the defence and other cuts which are still to come here at home while so much money is going, relatively unchecked, into the hungry bureaucratic maw of the Commission. Of course we get some of it back, and some of the ideas are good, but should it be spent on comitology and all its works?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, this morning I reread the Second Reading debate on this Bill in another place. I was struck by the phrase, "modest but important" which was used repeatedly on both sides of the House. Many honourable Members went on to debate those modest but important aspects of the Bill. Today's debate has been different from that in the other place. It has been far more wide-ranging, and I welcome it for that reason.
I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the treaty which will contribute towards enlargement. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, described enlargement as being of the greatest possible significance. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, agreed with that view. I, too, believe that it is a tremendous challenge for the Government to move towards enlargement and, what is more important, to convince the British people of the importance of enlargement and the inevitable cost that will flow through it.
First, the extension of QMV is a real step towards making enlargement possible. Enlargement would not be possible without the extension of QMV. That is not
92
something to be feared. Extension of QMV removes the ability of one country to block measures which may be in the interest of this country, and that, in itself, is a good thing. The extension of QMV raises the issue of accountability. That is why I welcome the modest but significant improvement in the powers of the European Parliament, and the extension of co-decision with the Council of Ministers.
Irrespective of the argument for enlargement, those changes should be welcomed in their own right. They represent an advance in the democracy and accountability of the European institutions. They will advance the cause of enlargement. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, complained about lack of reform of the CAP and that the issue of the strategic funds was not addressed in the treaty. I would argue that it is only the realities of an imminent enlargement that will lead to reform of the CAP and the strategic funds. That, in itself, will be one of the benefits of enlargement.
I shall turn now to the common foreign and security policy aspect of the treaty. The treaty, as noble Lords will be aware, underlines the primacy of NATO as the cornerstone of the European allies' defence, which I welcome. My noble friend made it clear in his opening address that the treaty does not concede the principle of the integration of the WEU into the EU. That I also welcome.
As a recent delegate to the WEU, I was disturbed to hear some delegates using it as a forum for expressing anti-American sentiments, which I regard as wholly unhelpful. While I believe that Europe should pay its fair share for defence, and should be responsible for its own defence policy, I do not believe that there should be any damage to the NATO alliance between America and our European allies. Nevertheless, that raises the question of the WEU's role, and how it can contribute to greater European security and enhance conditions for enlargement.
My noble friend will be aware that there are many different categories of membership of the WEU. It is a complex institution. It has a limited operational capability. It is basically a talking shop with a moral authority. But far be it from a Member of the House of Lords to criticise an institution on that basis.
My noble friend will also know that Russia has aspirations to join the WEU in some way. Russia's aspirations should be met. Our government should use their influence in the WEU Council of Ministers to encourage Russian membership in some form. Russia is still sore at the prospect of NATO expansion. It is just about the only thing on which Russian politicians can agree. They are looking for a forum in which to express their defence concerns. The WEU could offer them that forum.
The WEU is in its second childhood. Its first childhood was after the Second World War when it was born. Its second childhood is now, following the collapse of the lion Curtain. Like any child, it is looking for direction and a role in life. The Amsterdam Treaty has clearly defined what it is not; namely, it is not to be the defence arm of the EU. However, it does not define what it is to be for. If it is to be a taking shop, it needs to

93
talk to the people who matter. Undeniably, the Russians matter a great deal, as they are, after all, still the largest military power within Europe.
I have sought to concentrate upon aspects of the treaty which will affect and enhance the potential enlargement of the EU. I have spoken briefly about QMV and the CFSP. However, if we are serious about enlargement, we need to utilise all the institutions of which we are a member to ensure that enlargement can occur. I have talked about the WEU. The Council of Europe also has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that human rights are properly observed and understood by aspirant countries. That was a point made obliquely by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I support her in that.
The Government need to form a strategic view of how they will utilise the various institutions to work towards the goal of enlargement. They have more than one string to their bow. It is regrettable that the institution of the EU itself is only talked about when we discuss the potential for enlargement of the EU. There are other institutions available working towards that end.
My noble friend Lord Brooke spoke movingly of the achievements of the European institutions in maintaining peace and prosperity over the past 50 years. We have a moral imperative and obligation to extend that peace and prosperity to the countries of the former Soviet Union. I welcome the treaty—for what it has achieved and for what it promises. I wish my noble friend well as he pilots it through the House.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I shall start by paying a personal tribute to my right honourable friend Enoch Powell, in particular, for his contribution to the European debate. I recognise that he was one of those great Englishmen who have enlightened our history by speaking what they see to be the truth, without fear or favour. That passion for speaking out was accompanied by an equal passion for logic and a formidable intellectual capacity. He persuaded me, against my previous inclinations, to vote against our membership of the Common Market. He will be remembered long after many of those who outranked him have been forgotten.
Now that we are debating yet another treaty to carry forward the political union, which Enoch Powell always said would follow, I am astonished that the question he asked in 1970—whether we can and will enter into a political union that deals with the major matters of political life affecting the daily lives of people in this country—still remains substantially unanswered.
Today, the question is wrapped up in the anxieties expressed by those of us on this side of the debate who keep denying the possibility of sharing sovereignty. In the debate on the Maastricht Treaty, the view that the processes of European integration were inherent in our signing the Treaty of Rome was honestly and directly spelt out in particular by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. But in that debate, even he said that his only regret was that he lost the argument with the Commission that we ought to complete the economic agenda and leave the political agenda for a future generation. Here we are taking just such a further step.
94
To my recollection, in every major political debate, there is a minority which is vehemently in favour of the measure and a minority which is similarly opposed to it. The opinion of the majority lies somewhere in the middle and it could be said to be pragmatic. Again in the debate on the Maastricht Treaty, I read the speech of my noble friend Lord Carrington in which he made the distinction in attitudes between the conceptualists and the pragmatists. His final view was that in his judgment much that is in the treaty will not happen. That opinion, coming from such a distinguished Member of our House, coupled with the opt-outs from the treaty, did much, I dare say, to sway the uncommitted middle view.
Nevertheless, the political agenda which lies at the root of the dispute which most of us have with Europe has not gone away. It must now be the conclusion that in ratifying the Maastricht Treaty the conceptualists won. The opt-out from the social chapter has gone and monetary union looms. The game of grandmother's footsteps continues. The Treaty of Amsterdam is a further step. It is a smaller step than the conceptualists would have liked and it is presented as being of little significance to keep the pragmatists on side. Its true significance will be further revealed in Committee which—and I apologise to the House—unfortunately, I regret that I shall be unable to attend.
Since the election, the preparation for absorbing the United Kingdom into a European framework has been running at a furious pace in many respects. The Government have accepted the social chapter. They are keeping the country on track to join the monetary union as soon as may be. We urgently need to apply the tests necessary to answer the Powell question; that our membership provides a necessary democratic legitimacy to deal with the major matters of political life affecting the daily lives of the people.
The Conservative Party suffered a devastating defeat at the last general election. One of the main complaints was that it was arrogant and remote from the aspirations of the people. Is that not the same thing as failing to deal with the major matters affecting the daily lives of the people? I could give plenty of instances when edicts from the European Commission and regulations passed to implement them were regarded in just such a light.
Under the auspices of the "people's party", we are having to re-invent the semblances of democracy. The slogan itself seems to recognise the gulf which is appearing. The Bill incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights has just been through your Lordships' House. The conceptualists would regard that as progress and the pragmatists as inevitable. Whichever view one takes, it incorporates an alien system into British law. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor regards it as a jewel of a Bill. In my own private vocabulary, it is a barrack room lawyer's Bill. It enables individuals to challenge the state for perceived injustices not through a political process but through the courts.
The Treaty of Amsterdam continues its process and takes human rights into the competence of the Community as well as giving the European Court of

95
Justice and Interpol a greater role in the criminal field. We will in due course discuss the federalisation of Britain brought about by Scottish and Welsh devolution. Is it coincidental that it emulates the German federal system so well? It incorporates the principle of subsidiarity into our constitution. It is, in my view, a curiosity that having eliminated Conservative representation in Scotland at the election and achieved unanimously the government which they wanted, the Scots still voted to have their own government. It remains a matter of doubt whether in achieving that they will have solved the problem of finding a process which will deal with the major matters affecting the lives of the people better than they already have.
The key to our success as a nation was a system which put a government into power by democratic election to deliver prosperity and peace by whatever democratic means they choose with the rights of the people guarded by English common law, based on common sense. We should not so carelessly have abandoned it.
In much of Europe the demonstrable benefits of membership are difficult to find, riven as it is by unemployment and growing discontent. Political unification is being pushed ahead with monetary union as its linchpin before growing national self-interest leads to disintegration. The political reunification of Europe is being constructed on its failures rather than its successes. If we cannot accept Powell's view of Europe or answer his question, let us at least take the opinion of my noble friend Lord Cockfield and leave it to a future generation to complete the process, built on Europe's economic success, if that should turn out to be the outcome.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. I was moved by his charitable remarks about the late John Enoch Powell. I have always been wary of those who take up extremist positions. I have always listened with interest, fascination and concern to the speeches of the late Mr. Powell. As regards Europe, I believe that he advocated not splendid isolation but dangerous isolation.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not in his seat—I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, in his place—I am grateful to him for introducing the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage through Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, like his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will be aware that I have asked a number of probing questions about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is my belief that at the time of our presidency of the European Union it is understaffed and overworked. I welcomed the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, will tell his colleagues in another place that there is a need in this House not only for a Minister for Europe but also for a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for central and eastern Europe so that in future a Motion such as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will be unnecessary. I believe that a Minister of State
96
from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be appointed to the Government Benches in this House so that the Minister can answer questions on Europe.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I read the debate in another place on 12th November. I welcomed the remark made by the Secretary of State that:
"Britain is now respected as a constructive partner with which the other countries of Europe can do serious business".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/97; col. 919.]
I emphasise the words "serious business". He said that Britain is no longer regarded as a persistent opponent which sabotages the business of Europe. Those are strong words and they are true.
I always listen with respect to the speeches of Members of the Official Opposition and I listen with care. However, I could not help noting that they are deeply divided on the question of Europe. I am only too pleased that they are not in power now during our presidency of Europe from 1st January to 30th June. What would our 14 colleagues and the aspirant nations make of their policy towards Europe?
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston on his maiden speech from these Benches. He described the Treaty of Amsterdam as hesitation, not commitment.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, I wish to deal with the issues of the institutions and also the enlargement process—bringing in the first wave of the five-plus-one nations into our European Union, and the negotiations start, of course, on 31st March.
First, on the institutions, I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, said about the institutions. He said that the presidency could possibly be held by one of the minority states and, indeed, always held by one of the minority states. We should not have a hard and fast rule. Sometimes there will be a head of state with the vision to lead. Why should we not go with that president rather than alphabetical order? Let the European Union institutions be as flexible as possible. I hope that the British Government, during their presidency, will reinforce that principle throughout their deliberations.
Secondly, I turn to the enlargement process. In nine days' time, the president and delegation of the smallest state in population and in size of the present five-plus-one will arrive in this country, in London. He is President Meri, the President of Estonia, and I declare an interest as Secretary of the British-Estonian all-party parliamentary group.
In 1991, the then foreign minister of the provisional government of Estonia, because that government had not been officially recognised by the United Nations and other institutions, arrived in Britain. I learnt subsequently that there was a lot of toing and froing within the Foreign Office as to whether that statesman should be welcomed at an official level. It was Mr. Douglas Hogg, the then Minister of State, who met him.

97
How different it is, seven years on. The president will be received by Her Majesty the Queen. He will meet the Prime Minister. He will no doubt, with his distinguished delegation, meet officials from the Foreign Office. He will come to this House and be entertained by the British-Estonian parliamentary group. He will go to the City of London where the Lord Mayor will entertain him. He will make speeches. He is a formidable orator, writer and statesman. He speaks five or six languages fluently.
I shall be listening very carefully to what he says and I hope Her Majesty's Government will listen too because if Estonia joins the European Union in course of time, the European Union in Europe—not so much in Scandinavia, because Finland is a member of the European Union—will have a border with the Russian Federation. In my opinion, that changes everything.
We shall be back to the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries where we have within Europe a free trade area, a union and a common currency. I refer of course to the Hanseatic League. Anybody who has lived in an Hanseatic port as I have done for the past five years—and it could be argued that London was such a port—can look at the buildings of the Middle Ages, the churches and the works of art and can realise that that was founded on a free trade area with a common currency called gold and silver. Why are we frightened of a single market and a common monetary currency called EMU? It has been tried before and was successful.
We are rightly worried about minorities, the minority problems in central and eastern Europe. Occasionally I have had the honour to entertain Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. They come to this House and look around. I see them off at Victoria Station or take them to Gatwick. I say to them, "What surprised you most about our nation?" Invariably they refer to one fact and they say, "You have so many coloured people in your nation and you all live in harmony. We would like to follow that example". I say to them, "You are absolutely right. There are more minority ethnic community citizens in Britain, 3 million, double the number of citizens of the population of a country like Estonia".
When they come to join the Union, there will be a number of criteria to be met. When His Excellency, President Meri, arrives on 25th/26th, I hope that Ministers, and not only from the Foreign Office, will ask him what difficulties his nation will have to meet before it can satisfy the criteria to join the Union. I hope then that all 15 nations of the European Union will be able to assist the second group of nations, which are not in the first group, to start negotiations on 31st March, to make it easier for them. I hope that the period between the first group and the second group will not be over-prolonged. That is my hope because after the First World War, the Russian, Austro-Hungarian and German Empires dissolved. At that point in time, we had the opportunity to create a Europe at peace and in harmony with itself. We missed that opportunity. That opportunity has arisen again with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I beg
98
anybody connected with the negotiations on enlargement not to funk or fail that opportunity which has now come twice this century.
8.58 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Earl. Lord Carlisle, is a bit iffy on the subject of whether EMU will work. Try telling that to Philip Snowden, Stafford Cripps, Norman Lamont and one or two others. He is also technically wrong, because there were tariffs on Baltic amber and Polish wheat exports throughout the Hanseatic League, and on spars and pitch for the navy of Charles II. Therefore, I think he was wrong on that one as he was, although I may be being a bit beastly to him, on the proposals in relation to the presidency. They are not in the treaty and therefore, they seem to be slightly irrelevant.
My father died in 1971 and when I came to your Lordships' House, when I was 30 or so, I decided to make my maiden speech on the accession treaties to Europe. I was sat on heavily by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who was then Leader of the House, and the very nice chap whose name I cannot remember who was Government Chief Whip at the time. I was sat on and not allowed to make that speech. My maiden speech was going to say that I foresaw the possibility of a recreation of a western Roman empire and that I foresaw that it would involve the politicisation of a federal Europe. At that stage, I welcomed it.
I have done a little tripping towards Damascus since then. It does not stop me being a fellow European, because I am a European. My culture is European; and my love of European history is deep and, I suspect and hope, quite knowledgeable. While I have now reversed my views, it strikes me that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, who made an excellent maiden speech today, I have done so not because I am anti-European but because it seems to me that Europe is going diametrically in the wrong direction.
There was a Bishop sitting on the opposite Benches earlier today. I was going to tell him that the Amsterdam Treaty reminds me irresistibly of the words of the General Confession. As he was a Bishop, I was going to take him gently through The Book of Common Prayer, which says:
"We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us".
The modern Church of England is unsound on The Book of Common Prayer, but that seems to me to be exactly what the Amsterdam Treaty has done. It has concentrated on the minutiae of bureaucratic government and has not attacked the fundamental weaknesses of the policies of Europe.
Europe at present has, I suggest, three seriously bad policies which take up most of its budget. No one in his right mind would defend the CAP. I get lots of money from it; indeed, I am delighted to receive the cheque. However, having put the cheque in the bank, I can still say that I should not have had that money. I am sufficiently hypocritical to take the cheque, yet still argue against being given it.

99
Europe has a fisheries policy, but even the Namibians run a better policy than we do. It also has a social policy which is doing nothing at all except great big things like draining the Missolonghi marshes, cutting down Spanish oak trees and sticking European stars all over bridges in Scotland. In other words, it spends its money on silly things. Surely Europe should be about travelling without let or hindrance; buying or selling widgets without let or hindrance; and being friends and having a concert of Europe. It is the concert of Europe which is so important. When we start saying that there should be a common foreign policy, of course it will not work if Mr. Poos gets up and says, "Now is the moment of Europe". This was done over Bosnia and the whole thing imploded. It took decisive action by the Americans to bring progress.
As has frequently been pointed out this evening, we have seen the disaster in Europe over the Gulf. I have grave doubts about the Anglo-American policy. That is not because I think that Iraq is lovely; I do not. It is just that I am not sure whether the policy will work. Equally, we have been down the social chapter road before. I was reading a book only yesterday on the Austro-Hungarian empire. Joseph II introduced compulsory education and unified tariffs, and indeed he introduced some quite enlightened social legislation. However, that did not make Austria prosper. The only way that we can make Europe prosper is by removing any barriers to the buying and selling of widgets, and that includes silly things like the CAP. Unless we do so, we shall not allow the east European countries in. If we have a barrier on the Oder or on the Elbe, what will happen is that those people will not be able to sell their goods because a tariff war will begin just like that instigated by Joseph II in 1770 or 1780. Unless we expand towards the East, it will not prosper and it will not grow rich. If it grows rich, it will grow fat and idle and there will not be social upset. We must help them get rich. Unless we do so, our own security will be threatened.
I sat on a Committee of your Lordships' House which studied what would happen if the east European countries came into the European Union and what would be the effect on the CAP. The unanimous view of that committee was that either we had the east Europeans in or we had the CAP. No one has contradicted that committee's findings. We must expand towards the East; we must stop worrying about the minutiae; and we must go back in foreign affairs to the concept of those great Europeans, Metternich, Castlereagh and Talleyrand, who managed a system of congresses for 30 years and kept the peace of Europe. That is how it must be done and not by bureaucratic means and falsely holding things together. The Treaty of Amsterdam is like the General Confession: it has left undone those things which it ought to have done and it has done those things which it ought not to have done. I have a feeling that there is no health in it.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Onslow, I did have the opportunity to speak at the time of our accession to the Common Market. I spoke and voted against it. I did so then because of my fears for the future and nothing that has happened since has allayed them. The failure to hold a Maastricht referendum haunts us now. It is ironic that the Maastricht pill was sweetened with the sugar of subsidiarity—a doctrine which has never delivered anything and which, as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford reminded us, will be virtually swept away in practice by Amsterdam.
If at Maastricht we crossed the bridge from association to integration, Amsterdam merely emphasises that; indeed, it not only emphasises that, it also takes us a league or two further. I do not believe that I recognised the Minister's description of Maastricht as a "modest treaty". I think that that is what he said, but no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong. Amsterdam, by building on the existing competencies and adding to them moves us nearer to a centralised European state. The objective of creating a European state has long since been on the agendas of Eurocrats and Europhile politicians. But the stark reality of this has never been openly brought to the attention of the British electorate by successive British governments or, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, put it, by British political leaders. Hence my observation that we are haunted by the failure to hold a Maastricht referendum with campaigning that would have brought the issue to the fore.
Of course the electorate know the possibility of a Euro state exists; but those who have predicted its inevitability have usually, in the various contexts of their predictions, been labelled rebels. We who legislate must study the treaties, but knowledge and understanding of the myriad detailed ways federation is advanced are hardly in the public domain, buried as they are in the tangled skein of treaties unfamiliar to the public. Amsterdam has constitutional implications which make me admit that I favour defying convention and refusing this Bill a Second Reading. But in the extreme unlikelihood of such a dramatic outcome, I put it to this House and to Her Majesty's Government that this time round we should have a referendum, not a referendum on specific treaty provisions or even on its generality but one which simply puts the question, "Do you want a single European super state governed from Brussels?" Widespread unease exists and people deserve to be asked.
It may be that neither we nor some other nations want a super state; but national governments are inexorably negotiating the framework. We are promised a single currency referendum but despite its significance as a central element in a Euro state, it can still be presented in terms that will ignore my fundamental question. What is more, perhaps the intending participants of monetary union will not be able to fudge the criteria to get it off the ground. Even if it does, there exists a view that it will fail. Therefore we may never get that referendum

101
on a single currency. There is time for my suggested referendum. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I ask: why the haste to ratify?
We are promised a long and intensive Committee stage which is only proper not just because of the important detail to be examined but because of the guillotine in another place. In the course of today's debate we have heard of many items inviting close scrutiny. I shall not rehearse a list; but clearly the powers and role of the European Court, and its relation with national courts, need to be discussed in detail, as does extension of qualified majority voting and the threat to the national veto by the back door through potential abuse of the human rights article.
Noble Lords will be anxious to listen to the "big guns" and therefore I shall close. If any noble Lord feels that I have overstated my views on the possibility or prospect of a European super state I suggest, if he or she has not already done so, that they should read the European Parliament's welcome of Amsterdam set out in its resolution on the treaty.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we have had a long debate and it behoves the closing speakers not to delay your Lordships further.
I think that many will agree that the treaty is a curate's egg. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is correct in saying that it has done a number of things that it should not have done and that it has not done a number of things that it should have done. One has to remember that the negotiations for the treaty were conducted primarily by the former Conservative Government and that a number of the faults in the treaty are retained from the particularly obstructive and obscurantist position taken by the Conservative Government until 1st May, leaving those involved in the negotiations with a tremendous rush in order to conclude it and get on with the important and serious business of the European Union. I hope that we all agree that that is enlargement and the restructuring of Europe.
The treaty has achieved less than it should have done. However, I read it through again yesterday. We may discover in five or 10 years' time that it is a little like the Single European Act. At the time everyone on all sides said how disappointing that legislation was and how little it achieved but discovered five to 10 years later that it had moved the European Community further forward in a number of useful ways.
The British Conservative Government pursued flexibility as a source of opting out when they wanted. Others, sadly, pursued flexibility as a principle by which they could shut out the awkward British. To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that is one of the reasons why the flexibility clauses in the treaty are so immensely confused.
The treaty did not sort out subsidiarity. I regret that. It did not unlock institutional reform. It made only limited progress on a common and foreign security policy; and made potentially large steps forward in justice and home affairs, asylum and refugees, border controls and police co-operation. The shadow of the divisions within the
102
Conservative Party—I refer to Michael Howard, Rupert Murdoch and others—fell first over the Conservatives' shoulder and then the Blair Government's shoulder. It led Britain to opt out, with difficult consequences for the British Government. I hope that we shall explore those a little further in Committee.
How should the House now consider the Bill? We could and should examine the weaknesses within the treaty, consider the difficulties of implementation and challenge the Government to make clear what they understand the implications of commitments made may be. Some of us will wish to press them on justice and home affairs. One of the most appalling aspects of the late night negotiations was the signing into the treaty of an acquis under Schengen which had not yet been fully agreed. It has taken a further six months to sort out the contents. The negotiations, I understand, are still under way as to exactly which part goes where between the European Community treaty and the continuing third pillar.
This House is a revising Chamber which should bring the expertise of its Members to bear on legislation in progress. There are those who have suggested that we should be, and act as, a tribune of the people. I suggest that this House is not best equipped for that, let alone to claim that we speak for the people of England better than another place.
There have been two kinds of speeches in the debate. Some noble Lords addressed the treaty and its implications. There were some good speeches. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones. Both were extremely helpful, constructive and detailed. And there have been those who claimed to speak the truth that feebler men deny—the self-claimed honest bloke. Their speeches were almost uniformly longer. I conducted an informal timing process. All those over 15 minutes were familiar speeches on familiar themes. One speech took 20 minutes. There was no sense of a changing Britain, let alone a changing world. Those speeches could have been made in 1988, 1978 or 1968—and some were. They could have been made in 1958. As a student I remember reading Sir Derek Walker-Smith making exactly the same points, and making the same honest mistake as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, made in referring to English law as British law.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that in the 1997 election only a minority of the British electorate voted for parties which supported the treaty. That is not the case. If one adds together those who voted for the new Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, it was a clear majority. But if one adds together those who voted for the Conservatives and Referendum Party—it was a well financed Referendum Party campaign—the figure is a great deal smaller. I well remember going around Somerset during the election campaign and noting that there were as many Referendum Party posters in many villages as Conservative posters and thinking that the Referendum Party would do extremely well. It must have received at least one vote for every poster that it had on display‡ It was not a resounding victory for those

103
who claimed to speak for "the British people", otherwise neglected. The Referendum Party claimed all of that—and look what happened to it.
Let us remember just how much Britain has changed over the past 30 years. The British economy, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, who spoke about the need to maintain sovereignty, and the electricity industry as a particular example, is not quite so British as it used to be. I read in my copy of the Financial Times that takeovers between French and American companies go on within the British electricity industry these days, contrary to the idea that we still have an independent economic policy. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, whom I am sorry not to see in the Chamber today, wrote in the New Statesman of, "the independence of economic policy we know", which rather neglects the extent to which Mrs Thatcher's Government depended on persuading foreign companies to invest in Britain as a vehicle for British economic generation. The deliberate abandonment of British economic sovereignty was, after all, one of the principles on which the Thatcher Government operated.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Surely he must know that there is a difference between control and ownership. We own overseas rather more than people own in this country. It is control of economic policies rather than the ownership of assets which must matter. I thought that even O-levels made that understandable.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I stand corrected. Britain maintains in particular a large amount of portfolio investment in other countries. The question as to how much of the City of London is now owned by others and how much British banks now own in other countries arguably suggests that the balance of control is more against us than for us.
Other noble Lords spoke of the British people and the sinews of nationhood, in that deeply emotive phrase. Their image is of a British society that is also unchanging. I spend my time professionally teaching British people aged 18 to 21, all of whom were born after we joined the European Community. My son attends a school where a quarter of the British citizens in that school are Moslems. British society has also changed a great deal. The idea of a coherent English nation, different and separate from the Continent, certainly does not fit with what I see in London and Bradford.
Turning to communications with the outside world, heaven knows, Mrs Thatcher's greatest monument to Britain is the Channel Tunnel, which enables me to travel to Brussels as fast as I can travel to Bradford—and which, my friends in Westminster Abbey tell me, now has the effect that, between 20 and 30 minutes after each Eurostar train arrives at Waterloo, there is a notable surge of tourists entering Westminster Abbey and asking for a cup of coffee in the cloisters. That is the whole globalisation of Britain—which has consequences, some of which are in this treaty. If 10 times as many people cross the English Channel each year as did 20 years ago
104
(and the figure is of that nature) clearly the British police have to co-operate with police in other countries to a far higher extent than they did before.
If one wishes to defend British nationhood, one should talk about reintroducing proper border controls. It used to take me, as a student, four or five minutes to get through British Customs to British passport control. It now takes me about 20 seconds. Perhaps we need therefore to double or treble the number of immigration officers, Customs officers and others to cope with that great surge and defend British people and British nationhood.
We do not, of course, because we have not put together the old rhetoric of nationhood and sovereignty with what is happening outside in terms of our society, economy and communications—and, of course, of Europe itself. The Cold War has ended and we find ourselves, as many speakers have said, faced with the redefinition of Europe and with the most important issue facing the European Union; namely, is the inclusion of those former socialist states within our community of states.
Many good criticisms have been made in the debate regarding the inadequacies of preparation for enlargement so far. Again, the previous British Conservative Government, by their obstructiveness, contributed to the inadequacies. The over-preoccupation with monetary union has also left preparations for enlargement behind it.
Let me focus briefly on two aspects of the treaty which I hope we shall come to in Committee: the third pillar, the whole Schengen dimension, and the CSFP. Activity under justice and home affairs now accounts for some 30 per cent. of meetings serviced by the Council secretariat and some 40 per cent. of communications managed by it. That represents an immense growth over the past 10 years. It is not growth of European bureaucracy; it is driven by national police forces, Customs services and others wanting to work together.
In the assessment of Justice, a highly reputable non-governmental organisation, what this treaty puts forward is an improvement in transparency and a transfer of a number of functions from the third pillar into the European Community itself, giving better scrutiny and better judicial oversight.
Some of us will have many concerns about this—in particular, as to how Britain intends to handle the complicated opt-out and future opt-ins which, under the shadow of its Conservative predecessors, the Government negotiated. If, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, what Europe should be about is travel without let or hindrance, the British Government. encouraged by their predecessors, were determined to slow that process down. I regret that.
There is much here with regard to strengthening the common foreign and security policy. When I look at the behaviour of the British Government as president of the European Union over the past few weeks, it seems to me that a number of people in the British Foreign Office have not read this part of the treaty. There is, for example, an agreement that members of the United

105
Nations Security Council shall in all circumstances consult their Community colleagues. There is a statement in a protocol that the Western European Union is an integral part in the development of the European Union. A number of matters here provide us with the potential for greater co-operation in foreign policy, but that depends on close co-operation between the three key players in European foreign policy: the United Kingdom, France and Germany. I regret that the Government have made only limited progress in building closer co-operation with France and Germany since May last year.
We have touched on other changes in the treaty. I was puzzled by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, at the beginning of the debate. I have checked the Treaty of Rome and I note that Article 158 of the 1958 treaty says:
"The members of the Commission shall he appointed by common accord of the Governments of the Member States".
What we have here is a relatively minor and useful move forward, not the shift from intergovernmental control to supranational control which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seems to be suggesting.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, threw in front of us the biggest nightmare of all: that there is somehow a plot to build not a federal state but a unitary state in Europe. I am not sure where one draws that conclusion from.
We have had other fantasies of the nation state versus the European state, as if there were a European super-state. I believe we all understand the reality that the nation state is not what it was 50 years ago, that none of us entirely wishes to see a European state and that we are attempting to design something in between the two which can retain national identity while providing all of us with the means to pursue common tasks more efficiently than any of us can do alone. This treaty takes us some small steps in that direction. It has not done a number of things which it ought to have done. I look forward to examining some of its weaknesses and strengths in more detail.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, realises that the reason he gets through the Customs so much more quickly is that he is a noble Lord. When I was a mere "honourable" it took me ages to get through the Customs into America because the Customs officers always wanted to know what on earth "The Honourable" meant, and it was very difficult to describe.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, described the Bill in the words of another place as "modest but important". It may be modest, but it has taken up an awful lot of your Lordships' time. Perhaps I may give some small consolation to the noble Whip, Lord Whitty. I remind him that not only have three speakers scratched from the debate, but the brief guide to the Conduct of the House sets out that those noble Lords who have spoken and who are not in their place when the Minister comes to sum up, cannot expect to have their questions answered. And there are an awful
106
lot of questions. My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked enough to enable us to go straight into tomorrow's debate on Iraq without going to bed. That is a debate in which both he and, to a lesser degree, I are involved, but we look forward to having the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, refreshed and well-slept because she has been able to have a full night and a full day today.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. It is my understanding that it is the custom and practice of this House to refer to noble Lords who are replying to the debate as, "the noble Lord the Minister".
Lord Burnham: My Lords, all I can say is that I note what the noble Baroness said. I referred to the noble Lord as "the Minister".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to him as the "Whip".
Lord Burnham: My Lords, yes, but later as "the Minister". Perhaps I can offer apologies, if apologies are deserved, to the noble Baroness.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out that we will have to enter into detailed consideration in Committee of the objective contained within Article 1 of the treaty, to move towards the establishment of economic and monetary union with the ultimate goal of a single currency. I look forward to the ingenuity of noble Lords in putting together the immense number of amendments we will undoubtedly see in this extremely short Bill where to date the longest number of words have been spoken per word in the Bill.
I wish to turn, following on from my noble friend, to the area of common foreign and security policy also covered in the treaty. We are told that one of the Government's aims at the summit was to retain Britain's veto, though it is true that the Foreign Secretary's pronouncements on that became increasingly equivocal as the summit approached.
The provisions of the treaty mean that the overall strategy on foreign policy issues will remain a matter for unanimous decision-making, so in that sense the Government succeeded in their aim. However, Article J13 provides for subsequent decisions on the implementation of those strategies, on the adoption of joint action committee positions (Article J4) and on decisions based on "common strategy" (Article J3) to be taken by QMV. We will be asking the Minister for a clear definition of exactly what is meant by a "common strategy", since it is nowhere defined in the treaty, and what decisions it is likely to result in—decisions which we would have no power to prevent.
It is true that we could abstain. Article J13a provides for a constructive abstention mechanism—referred to during the debate—although abstainers from the adoption of a decision must,
"refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision".

107
If past experience has taught us anything, it is that constructive abstention is a tool best used in a "can't" not "won't" situation; when a country agrees with a decision but for domestic reasons is not able to participate in its adoption. I am sure that we have all seen many cases in Europe where that has happened. The Government will need to tell us if constructive abstention is an adequate and appropriate mechanism to deal with real disagreements between countries over foreign policy decisions.
As I mentioned, we have the Iraq debate tomorrow. That may well be considered to be a TEWT—a tactical exercise without treaty—for what will go on when this Bill becomes law and part of the European treaty. If it is not, we are going to find out what action will be jointly agreed and can be jointly taken by the European countries; who will say yes, who will say no, and what they will do about it when they have said yes or no. If it is not, it would appear that the Euro-train will be repeatedly stopped and delayed as the passengers pull the "emergency cord", as they may well do over Iraq. The Prime Minister is proud of this "emergency brake" mechanism, whereby no country can be outvoted if there are,
"important, stated reasons of national policy",
which cause it to oppose a decision. But a Minister will need to come to the House to tell us what will constitute an "important, stated reason". Who will arbitrate on this matter? Who will say whether the action of a member state in this position would be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?
What will happen if a common decision on strategy—here is where we come to Iraq—has been taken to take certain action if then a qualified majority decision is taken that the action should stop short of the use of force? If this country wanted to use force, would it be debarred from using it by the qualified majority voting provision? Would it be prevented from doing it if, for instance, it wished to support the United States?
Can the Minister further explain why the article which applies to the area of common foreign and security policy has been drafted via such a circuitous route, using the vocabulary of qualified majority voting, when in fact the article is based on the language of unanimity? I would therefore like an assurance from the Minister when he replies that the CFSP should be a complement to national foreign policies and not a replacement for them.
Today the nations of Europe live together in a state of interdependence, within a framework of collective standards and disciplines set by a number of international bodies, including the United Nations and the Council of Europe. No negative connotations should be attached to the possession and indeed the active promotion of our national foreign policy interests, even when they quite naturally differ from those of our neighbours. I believe that we have reached a time when the "national interest" can be defined as the collective expression of the democratic process in each of our countries; it represents the guiding spirit of democracy. It is for this reason that our foreign policy should be
108
decided here, with the Foreign Secretary answerable to the House. No one disputes that close and effective co-operation with our neighbours should be pursued when it is in the interests of the people of Britain, but achieving common positions must not become a goal in its own right.
My noble friends and I offer the Government our unreserved support for resisting merging the European Union with the Western European Union. The Prime Minister is rightly proud of the article in the treaty which states that NATO, rather than the European Union, is the cornerstone of our defence. Likewise, the previous administration were proud of the explicit reference expressing a similar sentiment in the Maastricht text, which stated that nothing undertaken by the EU should prejudice the importance of NATO. But it is worrying that, under Article J.7, the text states unequivocally:
"The Union shall accordingly foster closer relationships with the WEU with a view to the possibility of integration of the WEU into the Union".
The phrase "the possibility of integration" worries me. What guarantees can the Government give that, despite this possibility of a merger, enshrined in treaty form for the first time, no such merger will take place? For if this treaty gives an explicit recognition that NATO is the foundation of our common defence, it also gives an explicit recognition of the possibility of an EU and WEU merger, and the first steps towards a common defence identity for the European Union. A decision to send members of our Armed Forces to risk their lives, as may happen in Iraq—let us all pray not—must remain a decision for the Government, accountable to Parliament, and should not become a Community competence.
Furthermore, article J7 goes on to state that,
"The CFSP shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy … which might lead to a common defence should the European Council so decide".
Given the statement before the election that,
"Labour will not permit an EC Commissioner to determine our defence policy".
can the Government give an assurance that we are not slowly but surely moving into the orbit of an unrealistic, potentially damaging common defence policy?
I do hope that what the Minister said and the reply he can give us will be noted by the Treasury when it comes to prepare the finances of the strategic defence review and that what can happen is allowed for in the amount of money which is given to the Armed Forces.
In the course of this debate we have swung between the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, at the other extreme. I hope that the Government will consider all aspects of this question. I hope that we can hear either tonight—it will take a long time—or in the context of amendments in Committee something which will make all Members, particularly on this side of the House, but also on the other, happier about our future under this treaty.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a lengthy and fascinating debate. It was perhaps a little lengthier than it might otherwise have been. But I can assure the House that I was not particularly embarrassed by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. My colleagues and some of my ex-colleagues will know that under old Labour we always had people moving procedural Motions on speeches for constitutional reasons. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to the ranks. I was slightly more embarrassed by the subsequent plaudits that I received. I caution noble Lords that a round robin signed by my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who is no longer in his place, to the Prime Minister would not necessarily improve my chances of preferment.
There have been many interesting and thoughtful speeches. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. Clearly, the early educational work of Miss Marion MacDonald has borne fruit. I am sure that in our deliberations on European matters, in which the noble Lord is extremely experienced, he will be of great value to this House. He calls himself a purist: we have other purists in this House on European issues on various sides of the argument. He is welcome to join our debates.
Contributions have ranged widely, from the broad sweep of history to some pretty narrow questions of textual interpretation. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow some of the more elaborate historical analogies or some of the more esoteric interpretations. But I shall try to deal with as many of the points raised as I can. I shall read the debate in Hansard and reply in writing on any that I have missed. We shall also have what I perhaps hope and fear will be relatively lengthy Committee stages on the Bill.
Perhaps I may first make a central political point. For most of the debate I was pleasantly surprised. One or two of your Lordships failed to recognise that the May election meant a dramatic change in our relationship with Europe, but in general the balance of debate now recognises that the issue before us is not whether we participate in the European train but the speed, degree and detail of the way in which we do so.
I answer in his absence the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as my noble friend Lord Brooke already has. At the last general election two-thirds of the British electorate voted for parties which were demonstrably more in favour of the European Union than the incumbent government. There cannot have been a clearer verdict. Therefore, I assume that is why the Front Bench, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has not demanded a referendum on the issue, as they did not that long ago in this House. We are in a new era. It is not an easy one, but it is one where our participation in the European project and the questions arising from it are in a sense very important but nevertheless second order questions as to how that project will develop.
The views held by noble Lords have varied. We have heard from those like my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who have been deeply disappointed that the treaty did not go further. That was
110
clear also from the tone of the contributions made by those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. On the other hand, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and various other noble Lords who have said that the treaty takes us far too far towards a federalist state. We heard an interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney who said that this treaty is not the relevant treaty; that it is only a minor adaptation of Maastricht and that it was Maastricht that was wrong.
I respect all those points of view. I have quoted others as saying that this is a modest but important treaty, while I have tended to use the term "a consolidating treaty". I believe that that is the best term. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, suggested, the treaty is a curate's egg, I would contend that there is more good in it than bad. In that sense, perhaps we should move into the details of the debate.
The Treaty of Amsterdam signalled consolidation, but consolidation with a purpose. The immediate purpose was to allow Europe the time and the political will to make the difficult decisions on how to make enlargement—the reunification of Europe—a reality. Such decisions will not be easy. Noble Lords have referred to the Community budget, the CAP, the structural funds, further institutional reform and the development of a common foreign and security policy, all of which must be faced up to in the context of enlargement. In our debate in July, I said that one of the most important points about the intergovernmental conference was that it was over. That was the tone of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. He made very much the same point—that we have got it off the agenda. We can now concentrate on the central issues.
The Treaty of Amsterdam—and the fact that we have agreed a treaty—gives us the ground on which we can build and the context in which we can take key decisions. As my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney said, it is legitimate for noble Lords to raise wider issues. I shall do my best to respond, but my objectives tonight are much less ambitious. The Bill that I am presenting to the House does not pretend of itself to answer all—or, to a large extent, any—of those questions. The treaty simply gives us an improved legal and institutional structure in which to operate. The Bill simply gives authority for the ratification of that treaty by incorporating into British law those parts of the treaty that we are required to incorporate, principally the amendments to the first pillar of the Community treaties.
I turn now to some of the detailed points that have been raised. A whole range of points were raised about the institutions of the Community. I shall refer first to qualified majority voting. We have heard predictable and dire warnings about the dangers of signing up to more QMV. On the other hand, we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and others defend the extension of QMV. I believe that, judged on its merits, the extension of QMV was in the national interest. Indeed, extending QMV is not new. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, signed up to 30 extensions of QMV in the Single European Act. She was right then—and I believe that we are right now.

111
There is another big difference between ourselves and the Conservatives on this issue. The Opposition and even my noble friend Lord Stoddart—perhaps I should say "particularly my noble friend Lord Stoddart"—condemn the extensions of the powers of the European Parliament. However, the very extension of qualified majority voting raises questions of accountability and legitimacy. It is there that the need for the European Parliament to have a strengthened role in legislation arises. Therefore, by and large, we have extended co-decision between the Council and the European Parliament to those areas where qualified majority voting will now apply in the treaty.
I recognise that certain noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is perhaps the most experienced and knowledgeable—object to most of this legislation. My noble friend also made the valid point that there is concern in this country that once legislation is on the statute book other member states will be less effective than ourselves in enforcing, or even transposing, that legislation. I understand those concerns. As part of the commitment of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to attempt to complete so far as possible the single market during the period of our presidency, his main emphasis is on the enforcement of existing EU legislation, as is the priority in the programme on the completion of the single market put forward by the successor of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, Commissioner Monti. Clearly, enforcement in other members states and our own courts of law is very important for the completion of the single market.
As to the institutional issues that remained unresolved, the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Wallace and Lord Cockfield, and my noble friend Lord Grenfell, all referred to the disappointment, which I share, that the IGC was unable to grasp the nettle of reform of the Commission and the weighted voting system in the Council. We were close to agreement. The institutions protocol in the treaty will ensure that key decisions will be taken before enlargement. There is no reason to believe that the enlargement negotiations will be held up as a result. Any enlargement will involve an examination of voting weights and the number of commissioners as part of the accession negotiations. That is precisely what we are doing. To try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the protocol on institutions is quite clear. Article 1 of the protocol provides that the Commission will consist of one per member state on enlargement, but only if
"by that date the weighting of votes in the Council … has been modified in a manner acceptable to all member states".
Therefore, we give up our second commissioner only if we are satisfied on the far more important issue of the re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers.
Other noble Lords have raised wider issues on the institutions and expressed disappointment. The noble Lords. Lord Cockfield and Lord Garel-Jones, made interesting proposals, but I fear that they are beyond the bounds of political reality at Amsterdam or in the near future. Queries were raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the powers of the
112
Commission and the Commission president. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others made it quite clear that the nature of the Commission was that it was consensual on employment and collegiate in operation. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the fact that commissioners were appointed under the terms of the original Treaty of Rome by common accord. The criticism of Amsterdam for extending the powers of the president of the Commission in selecting commissioners and exercising political guidance merely extends that common accord. He cannot impose a British Commissioner on a reluctant British government or any other government for that matter. It makes good sense for the Commission President to have authority over the Commission and to be able to work well with his or her commissioners. An efficient co-ordinated Commission works in everybody's interests.
As for the role of the European Parliament in this connection, it is already the case that indirectly—perhaps in a sightly drastic way—the European Parliament can veto a British nominee by voting against the endorsement of the whole Commission. But the involvement of the European Parliament in the appointment of the Commission president is surely an improvement in accountability and the relationship between the various institutions of the European Union.
Another institution that normally attains considerable prominence in these debates is the European Court of Justice. In this debate it attained rather less prominence than I anticipated. It was left largely to my noble friend Lord Stoddart to raise these points. The Government believe that if the European Union is to work effectively, the Court of Justice must have strong if carefully circumscribed powers. This new treaty strikes a careful balance which we believe will serve the Union well. For the record, perhaps I should set out the scope of the limited extensions in the powers of the court which are dealt with in Article K.7 of the new treaty. That gives the court a very limited role in the JHA pillar. It is limited to preliminary rulings jurisdiction but only for those member states who choose to accept it. We have indicated that we would not in normal circumstances go down that road. It also deals with jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions adopted by the Council and jurisdiction over certain disputes between member states and between member states and the Council. A further power is contained in Article L of the treaty. which gives the Court jurisdiction over the fundamental rights implications of the institutions' action—of the institutions, not of member states—within the JHA pillar within the limits set out in Article K7. The Prime Minister agreed to those provisions because they are central to the effective operation of the treaty and in the UK interest.
In the previous debate I described the flexibility provisions almost as "the dog that did not bark"; nevertheless, there are some important flexibility provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney pointed out. The flexibility provisions which were agreed in Amsterdam are nothing like those which were being rumoured

113
before the treaty was agreed. They are modest, sensible provisions, allowing for some degree of diversity in the way the Union operates.
We were not strong advocates of such flexibility, but we recognised that it was a priority for some others. However we did ensure, as did others, that any decision to use flexibility mechanisms can be made only with the consent of all member states, any one of which can exercise a veto through the emergency break provisions. That is a key provision which will prevent flexibility from opening damaging divisions in the Union and the development of a two-tier Europe; secondly, it is made explicit that action undertaken under flexibility must remain open on equal terms to all member states which wish to join later; and, thirdly, the treaty protects the achievements of the single market by ruling out any undermining of the acquis. In short, the flexibility provisions which were agreed at Amsterdam will rule out the development of a two-speed or cumulatively hard core second class Europe. They are modest proposals which allow for differentiation as a last resort and when circumstances allow.
There are some institutional changes which will be required before the full effect of enlargement takes place. To that extent it is true that Amsterdam did not make as much progress as was hoped on some points, but all the institutional changes which were made move in the right direction. Those institutional changes which remain to be agreed and achieved have been set in the right context and atmosphere of co-operation between the existing member states of the EU.
There were of course issues which were never thought likely to be resolved at Amsterdam, and never time-tabled so to be, by even the most federalist of the member states and certainly not by the previous British government. They relate to reform of the EU budget. I agree with everyone—from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, through the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones—that the reform of the budget will be essential before we can move fully into enlargement mode. That is particularly true of the reform of the CAP, but there must also be reform of the structural funds and the assurance that any reduction in the structural funds to existing member states will be shared fairly. Facilities and resources will be available to ensure that applicant countries can meet the criteria for membership over the period of negotiation for their accession.
We shall need a detailed renegotiation of the budgets. That will start during the period of the UK presidency, continue intensively under the Austrian presidency, and move into next year. I agree with noble Lords who say that that is essential before we engage in substantial enlargement.
I come now to the issue of frontiers. Again, that did not feature as largely as I expected. I shall return to a possibly throw-away remark of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. He claimed that the security of frontiers had been negotiated by the previous government. That is not so. If there was any progress made before May, it was due, if anything, to the line taken by the Labour Party in opposition. I should know: I do not believe that it is
114
any great secret that at the beginning of last year the Dutch presidency, dealing as it was with a lame duck British government, judged it right to try to ascertain the views of the Opposition. With perhaps slightly less wisdom, the conduit chosen to convey those views was me. I indicated to the Dutch presidency that a Labour government would agree with the then government and would not join in the free movement chapter then proposed. I found it slightly surprising a few days later when it appeared in the press that that had been recognised by the Dutch presidency. But what certain Tories now claim as a triumph for themselves was a reflection of the view reached by the Dutch presidency that no British government would at this stage move into the then draft proposal for a chapter on free movement.
The fact remains that no text was agreed prior to the election and that at Amsterdam the great success in this area by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was to take that negative exemption that the Dutch presidency had accepted and turn it into a clear and explicit legal security for our forms of migration control and border control. That was a substantial negotiating achievement.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others regret that we cannot be participants in this free movement area and in the Schengen agreement. But we have all recognised that there are different patterns and histories of migration and administrative systems. It was wise to stay out of the free movement area agreed by our Continental partners.
I turn to an issue which is in part related but is different. It is slightly bizarre that those who have been most vociferously against us touching the Schengen agreement with a bargepole are now criticising us for failing to negotiate an easier way to join. Nevertheless, as a result of the criticisms which have been levelled here and at great length in another place. I need to set the record straight about what happened at Amsterdam. First, this is a limited issue. The United Kingdom Government, can of their own volition, join the free movement area at some future stage. Should the ambitions of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, be achieved and the Government change their mind, we can join without let or hindrance by the other member states. We can also join in any future development of Schengen. Therefore, the only area in dispute is that of UK or Ireland wishing to join in the existing Schengen acquis. Of course, we and the Conservative Party are clearly opposed to joining the bulk of that in any case.
My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been accused of being negligent in that respect. Therefore, I should lay down what happened. During the course of the debate at the European Council, Spain proposed an amendment to the Schengen Protocol to bring in unanimity for UK and Irish participation in the existing Schengen acquis. At the insistence of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, there was agreement that any such amendment should be submitted in writing by Spain. No such amendment was submitted.
When the revised treaty text was circulated after the summit, we subsequently learnt that the unanimity requirement had been introduced into the text. We took

115
that up with the presidency and a number of member states and as a result of that intervention we obtained a declaration that provides protection for the UK's interests in this area. That declaration states that other member states may invite the Council to seek the opinion of the Commission before it decides on a request by the UK to participate in any measure in the existing acquis. Moreover, member states also undertook to use their "best efforts" to enable the UK to participate.
That was a messy situation, but let it not blind us to the substance. The Amsterdam Treaty is a distinct improvement on the previous situation. Before Amsterdam, the situation was that the UK could, had we wanted, have sought full Schengen membership or remained completely outside the Schengen agreement. No halfway accommodation was available to us. We now have mechanisms written into the treaty which enable us to seek to take part in the existing acquis and to participate in future developments without restriction when that is considered to be in the national interest.
Several other issues related to migration. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about improving the situation for asylum-seekers and about the backlog in relation to asylum-seekers. As has been registered in this House, we recognise that there is a serious situation. An inter-departmental study of the asylum process was announced in August. It is an extremely complex study, examining the process from beginning to end. As part of that process, we are looking at how best to tackle delays and to deal with the backlog of asylum cases. We expect to have the outcome of that study very shortly.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart raised the question of Europol. Under the articles governing Europol—for example, under Article K.4—there will not be any possibility of a police force operating in the United Kingdom without government approval. Indeed, Article K.4 allows a police force to operate in the territory of another member state only in liaison and agreement with and support of the authorities of that state. Of course, Article K.4 is subject to unanimity.
Moreover, on the second point raised by my noble friend, Article K.7 does not bind future parliaments.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what is the point of having an article like that when a police force can do that perfectly well without a treaty? If the Metropolitan police wishes to co-operate with the French Sûreté, that can be done without having a treaty if it is in the interests of both national governments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are not talking here about bilateral co-operation with the Sûreté. We are talking about co-operation between the new Europol operation and national police forces. Therefore, a treaty base is needed for the operation of that European police office.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that matter, and I am obliged to him for dealing with it, I am concerned that foreign police forces could be operating in this country not only
116
without parliamentary approval but without parliamentary knowledge. I believe that is important. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that when foreign police forces operate here, it will be possible for Parliament to know that they are doing so.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I repeat that we are not talking here about bilateral co-operation between the British and other police forces which operates in a number of respects with, one must say, varying degrees of transparency, and has done for many decades. Here we are talking about the operation of the new Europol set-up with national police forces. In those situations, it will be able to operate only in support of, and therefore with the knowledge of, the national police authorities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this, but it really is an important point. I understand the point which the Minister makes. However, many people feel that it could be the beginning of a federal police force. I should like the Minister's assurance that that is not so and I should be delighted if he can give it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, this treaty does not create a federal police force. Any such move could be achieved only with unanimity, as with all other areas of the third pillar. However, it provides the legal base for the development of the European police office which will act in support of police forces. Therefore, we are not talking about an operational police force but a supportive police office.
A Noble Lord: What is the difference?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the difference is fairly obvious. A national police force acting to combat a particular crime or suspected crime can call on the resources of Europol in terms of information, technical support and personnel in order to tackle that crime which may, more often than not these days, have a trans-national implication. But it is the national police force which calls on that support system. The national police force is the operational police force. I hope that is clear to noble Lords and if it is not, I can provide more detail in writing.
I must move on to the common and foreign security policy. I find rather illogical the criticism of the Amsterdam Treaty by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He argues that, because Europe has failed to have a common policy in relation to Bosnia and Algeria, we should not try elsewhere. The CFSP is strengthened by Amsterdam in several ways, including the creation of a High Representative and new decision-making processes which were queried by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park. The treaty establishes the possibility of developing common strategies which will set out policies where member states have important interests in common and also more flexible decision-making arrangements to enable the EU to respond more quickly to international developments.
The CFSP will retain its distinctively intergovernmental character. It is, therefore, certainly important that the UK operates closely especially with

117
France and Germany but also with the other nations of Europe. We shall retain our national veto both over important policy decisions and under those implementation decisions where we have important national issues at stake.
Because there is no existing EU policy on the Iraq crisis, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and others argued that that supposedly demonstrates the inherent weakness of the CFSP. However, others such as the Shadow Foreign Secretary in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place argued almost the exact opposite; namely, that the creation of common strategies implemented by QMV could lead to a situation in which the UK was forced to follow any new policy—for example, on Iraq—with which we disagreed. Both arguments are misguided. The strength of the CFSP comes from the will of member states to act together by consensus. That will cannot be artificially created through institutional mechanisms. That is why Her Majesty's Government have ensured that under the treaty no member state can be obliged to act or not to act in foreign or security affairs against its will. Common strategies are agreed by unanimity.
QMV is only used to implement agreed policies and even there we would use the emergency brake to block any attempt to use QMV to extend or otherwise change the policy set by a common strategy. Therefore, to answer the specific point of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, we could not get into a situation where we were prevented from taking further action—for example, in Iraq—because we would not have agreed to an action which prevented us from doing so. QMV decisions to implement common strategies are subject to the emergency brake and we would, if necessary, use it in those circumstances.
There are many other issues which have been raised. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke on the social chapter and, indeed, I agree with spokespeople from the Liberal Benches in relation to the human rights and the non-discrimination chapters. However, at this hour I do not intend to go into the issues raised by a number of noble Lords in relation to the single currency, as the Amsterdam Treaty does not alter any provisions on that front.
I should make it clear that I disagree with some of the historic and constitutional analyses of my noble friend Lord Shore. However, I agree that we should tell the truth about Europe. The truth in relation to this treaty and in relation to developments over many years has two sides. On the one hand, Europe is still clearly an association of free and individual states. That is why we have a treaty before us and not a constitution. On the other hand, there are at the same time widening and deepening areas not only of co-operation between those member states but also of some pooling of sovereignty. I shall not go into the conceptual difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, had in that respect; but, even there when we move into new areas of pooling of sovereignty they are subject to unanimity in relation to the treaty and they are also subject to ratification by each individual member state severally before they come into effect. Therefore, we are well short of a federal state and dramatically short of a unitary state. Indeed, I agree with
118
the way in which it was described by my noble friend Lord Grenfell and by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in his most thoughtful contribution. We are dealing with a new entity in the European Union, and it is a developing one. However, it is not a superstate and it will not become one as a result of this treaty.
I hope I have shown that the Treaty of Amsterdam is a treaty which is modest, consolidating and important—whatever you like to call it—and which deserves the support of all who value Britain's place in the European Union. I recognise that there are some who cannot, and will not, share that analysis but I do not believe that this treaty is a threat to the continuation of Britain as a nation state. Nor do I believe that it is a threat to competitiveness or jobs. Nor do I believe that it will isolate Britain in Europe. It is a treaty which could have been negotiated only by a Government who are determined to play a positive and constructive role in Europe. The fact that this Government were able to achieve their negotiating aims—or most of them—at Amsterdam is a persuasive argument for our policy of engaging constructively in Europe in Britain's interest.
There may be other points on which I shall write to noble Lords, but I wish to end with what the next stage of the European project will bring, which is the whole issue of enlargement. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to that. The next few weeks will see the start of the process of enlargement. There will he the European conference on 12th March. The accession negotiations will start on 30th March. We hope that we shall bring into that process not only the five plus one front runners but also the other five applicant states. The aim of this process is a big one. The treaty may be modest but the follow-on to the treaty is immense. It is to bring to the whole of Europe a new era of peace, democracy, security and prosperity and to ensure that Europe is capable of facing the economic, environmental and political challenges of the next century.
I am glad that many noble Lords from all sides of the House have broadly supported this treaty. I am even more glad that they have broadly supported the move into the enlargement negotiations and all that that entails. I very much look forward to the continuation of such co-operation on all sides. I hope that we shall return to some of these subjects in the Committee stage. For the moment I urge your Lordships to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ministerial Statements to Parliament
10.16 p.m.
The Earl of Northeskrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what role they anticipate the Strategic Communications Unit, launched on 14th January, will have in ensuring compliance with the requirement expressed in paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code that "when Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to

119
bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be that the Strategic Communications Unit is something of a closed book to many of your Lordships. Its launch was muted. Without fanfare and with little coverage in the media it tiptoed into being by means of Written Answers to both Houses of Parliament. And yet, as an indicator of the style of the Government and as a central plank of the restructuring of the Government Information Service, it is a development of some significance.
Superficially there should be few complaints about its purpose. In so far as government are the public persona of the nation, it is important that its image and the presentation of its policies are arranged in a co-ordinated and coherent way. That makes sense. It is especially important at a time when, as the report of the working group on the GIS, the Mountfield Report recognises,
"The media world is changing fast".
Additionally a great many of the major policy issues facing us as we approach the millennium—welfare reform, youth crime and so on—cut across traditional departmental boundaries. The unit's implicit acknowledgement that these should not be the province of narrowly focused specialisations within individual ministries, but require a more integrated approach, is welcome.
The Mountfield Report makes the point that,
"The handling of communications has attracted much public attention since the General Election".
This rather bland assertion belies the considerable degree of anxiety that has been expressed in this regard. While by no means exclusively—the role of "spin doctors", the seeming politicisation of the GIS and so on have also attracted adverse comment—it is the apparent lack of adherence to, and almost cavalier flouting of, paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code that seems to have caused most concern. Even the Speaker of another place has felt compelled to rebuke the Government about this, ruling that "it"; that is to say, Parliament,
"must be the first to hear of important developments in Government policy and I deprecate most strongly any action that is taken that tends to undermine this important principle".
Nor was this an isolated incident. She has ruled in similar vein at least seven times since 1st May; hence, of course, the terms of my Question.
One of the first ports of call for my preparations for tonight was the debate on the Ministerial Code initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. At that time the Minister enthused that,
"I happen to think that our publicity machine in Opposition was brilliant"—
I agree with him; so it was. But Government is a very different beast from Opposition. That point was conceded by the noble Lord thus:
"But I recognise that it is not the same as the responsibilities of an information machine when in government".
120
He went on to say
"it would be dangerous and probably shortlived were we to continue to think of importing into government Labour Party practice in Opposition".—[Official Report, 28/10/97; col. 1044.]
And yet in many respects that is precisely what the unit and its somewhat sinister bedfellow, the Media Monitoring Unit, do. Some commentators have gone further. Iain MacWhirter writing in The Times said:
"It is all about the creation of a centralised propaganda machine at the heart of government, which is unprecedented in British political history outside wartime. It is the final triumph of Millbank over Whitehall. No more will civil servants be impartial witnesses to government, there to inform and elucidate policy. They are now part of the message".
Viewed from that perspective, it is difficult to conceive the unit as being in any way sympathetic to our parliamentary democracy. That being so, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that copies of the reports alluded to in paragraph 6 of the Mountfield Report will be made available to Parliament.
Of course I do not underestimate the importance of the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, being comfortable with mechanisms at his disposal to assert his authority. Indeed, given the catalogue of selective leakings, gimmicky press conferences and trailing of policy initiatives that has characterised much of the Government's performance to date, it may be that that authority is in need of bolstering. As Anthony King has commented,
"It seems to me rather odd to describe the Blair administration as 'highly centralised' … when you have Gordon Brown doing his thing, Jack Straw doing his thing, David Blunkett doing his thing. Robin Cook, to a very large extent, doing his thing".
Tensions, I put it no more strongly than that, are clearly evident between the heavy hitters of the Cabinet. Of course that is not so surprising. What is of concern is the way in which individual Ministers seem to be seeking to establish their own departmental fiefdoms—something Anthony King has identified as an absence of collegiality. That may be a contributory factor as to why so many policy initiatives, spun mercilessly by this Administration's merry band of special advisers, seem to hit the headlines ahead of Parliament.
Be that as it may, paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code, buttressed by the Prime Minister's foreword, is unequivocal in determining Mr Blair's authority here. By inference, the establishment of the Strategic Communications Unit has little enough to do with Prime Ministerial authority because that is, or should be, more than adequately catered for by the Ministerial Code itself. It is about control, control of government information and communications and, thereby, control of the media and Parliament.
This gives rise to a peripheral but equally important point. There is a burgeoning sense of disquiet from all sides of the House at the not infrequent, some would say increasing, inadequacy of replies from the Government Front Bench. By way of example, I refer to the Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill. It goes without saying that that is antipathetic to paragraph 1 (iii) and (iv) of the Ministerial Code. And, as such it is very much of a piece with the apparent flouting of paragraph 27.

121
Of course in that regard, Ministers, perhaps inadvertently, have tied millstones around their necks by imbuing Government with a "review culture". I do not seek to devalue in any way the great benefits of consultation. But the criticism that the process provides a means to evade the "hard choices" of Government has merit. Indeed, a cynic might be tempted to suggest that with so many reviews floating about it is difficult for Ministers to say very much about anything if they are to stay within bounds. Little wonder that, driven at least in part by what many commentators see as an obsession with short term news management, policy items are dribbled into the media ahead of any announcements in Parliament.
One thing above all else can be said of the restructuring of the GIS. It is a manifestation of Will Hutton's "centralising tendency". That paradox between the decentralising and centralising instincts of the Government—I would not dream of being so uncharitable as to call it hypocrisy—begs all sorts of questions. For example, how is this "communications strategy" intended to be applied to devolved Scotland and Wales? As Peter Riddell has commented,
"There is a real reluctance to surrender the Executive string".
The restructured GIS underscores that sentiment".
By way of confirmation of that centralising trend, we now hear that the Prime Minister intends to establish his own prime ministerial department. Conceptually, the proposition is not without merit. I quote Peter Riddell again:
"In implementation there's a feeling that the Prime Minister's office is too weak, it needs to he linked in more with the Cabinet Office".
But that is a rather different supposition from that advanced by one Minister in response to the proposal:
"It's becoming more and more important, both politically and administratively, to have a strong centre and a lot of people are now looking very intently at how we can get that".
I do not, and would not, gainsay the Government's mandate. Nor do I dispute the sincerity of their devolutionary proposals. There is virtue in the desire to return power to the people. But—and it is a very big "but"—the legitimacy of that mandate is conferred only by virtue of the proper scrutiny of its terms within Parliament. And yet, increasingly, we are given cause to wonder whether the Government recognise that Parliament is the people. After all, that is a core precept of the representative principle. At risk of stating the obvious, and being mildly conscious that this may touch one or two raw nerves in New Labour minds, government is the servant of the nation, not its master—shades here of Sir Hartley Shawcross. In parliamentary terms, particularly by reference to paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code, that is unnerving.
There is a further twist to throw into the melting-pot. A necessary corollary to any co-ordinated presentation of government policy is a working—I stress "working" as opposed to "good"—relationship with the media. Time constraints prevent me from exploring the dichotomies of the media's role in political debate in too
122
much detail. Suffice it to say that I find it astonishing that the Prime Minister's official spokesman recently rubbished the BBC as a,
"downmarket, dumbed-down, over-staffed, over-bureaucratic, ridiculous organisation".
It may be that no love is lost between politicians and the media but, come what may, much of the art of politics is about getting the message across—hence, of course, the Strategic Communications Unit. It seems to me that Enoch Powell—I pay tribute to him as one of the greatest political intellects of this century—had it about right in suggesting:
"For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea".
It is even more extraordinary therefore that, increasingly, the BBC is being forced to adopt the refrain that Ministers have declined to appear on its programmes. How that squares with informing the public about the thrust of government policy I do not know. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House on that point as well as advising us as to how often that has happened since 14th January (the inception of the Strategic Communications Unit).
I have one final thought. I assume that it is merely coincidence that the Strategic Communications Unit could be represented by the acronym, SCU—that is to say, "skew". I am sure that your Lordships do not need to be reminded that the Shorter OED defines that as:
"a slant; a deviation from the straight line".
Someone, somewhere, has an incredible sense of humour‡
10.29 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Northesk has introduced this topic in the most erudite manner. I congratulate him on his speech and on introducing the debate. I am amazed that, apart from the Minister, there is to be no contribution to the debate from the Government Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches, which are fairly vacant, or even the Cross-Benches. Has a degree of spin been put on this debate, or is nobody interested in the sovereign role of Parliament and the impartiality of the Civil Service? That is what this debate is all about.
My noble friend Lord Northesk has drawn attention to the number of times that Madam Speaker in the other place has had to express her dissatisfaction at the Government's attitude towards their responsibility to Parliament. The formation of the Strategic Communications Unit does not appear to have offered any solution to the problem. In fact, the SCU appears to be a dangerous propaganda unit, politicising the Civil Service.
I make no apology for repeating the definition given in the Written Answer by the Prime Minister on 14th January this year
"The aim of the unit is to make sure events are scheduled, launched and followed through to maintain impact and to convey the central story and themes of the Government in all their communications".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/98: col. 234.]

123
The unit comprises two special advisers and four civil servants. This is a spin doctor's dream and constitutes nothing more than a crass propaganda exercise.
My noble friend Lord Northesk has already quoted Mr Iain Mac Whiner of The Times. I should like to quote what he said on 30th November 1997:
"The way this whole affair has been handled is profoundly disturbing. Just imagine if this centralisation of government information had happened under a Conservative government? The Liberal press would have been condemning it as an unwarranted politicisation of Whitehall, not only contrary to British constitutional practice, but carrying disturbing implications for democracy itself".
That is exactly what this debate is about: the responsibility of government to Parliament and hence to the people.
I should like to mention a specific example of what has been described to me—and I do not doubt the genuineness of the description—as a misunderstanding which I believe goes to the nub of what we are discussing. On 28th January this year I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, (Hansard, col. 287) whether I could have an assurance that the Foreign Secretary would not refer to the results of the review on the dependent territories in his keynote speech to the dependent territories conference on 4th February, bearing in mind the requirements of paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code. The answer I was given by the noble Baroness was:
"there is no question of the Foreign Secretary announcing a major policy change on 4th February. The issue remains under active consideration but no decisions on the issues that the noble Lord raised have yet been taken as regards this important and complex issue".—[Official Report, 28/1/98; col. 318]
On 4th February the newspapers contained direct references to the contents of the speech to be made by the Foreign Secretary at 9.30 that morning. They had obviously received copies of the speech beforehand. The press release stated that the Foreign Secretary would,
"set out the conclusions of a six month review of the territories".
That was precisely my question on 28th January. The Foreign Secretary said in his speech:
"These are the principal conclusions of our review".
I find it extraordinary that I could have been given the answer that I was given, albeit through a misunderstanding, and that the Foreign Secretary could have spoken as he did without coming to Parliament first.
Your Lordships may be aware of the proceedings of the House last Thursday, when it came to light that a Written Answer had been released to the press before being sent to me, for which I received a handsome apology from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I fully accept that all efforts have been made to determine how that occurred and I received an explanation for it. However, one cannot but wonder whether the Strategic Communications Unit had any part in that insult to Parliament.
I thank the noble Lord for his Answers and his assurances that the normal procedures for the release of Written Answers will be retained. As I understand it, a Written Answer is delivered to the Minute Office, from
124
whence it is sent to Hansard and to the Press Office. That procedure was obviously not adhered to in that instance.
We had yet another example of the lack of consideration to Parliament in the previous debate, the subject being the Treaty of Amsterdam—one of the most important debates in this House. It is so important in Denmark that they are holding a referendum on it, and Germany referred it to its Constitutional Court. What do we get? The Minister is not in the Chamber for the debate. I understand that a similar situation arose in the other place when it was debating the beef-on-the-bone legislation. Surely all of that lays down suspicions for the conclusion that this Government have let their majority in the other place go to their head in relation to respect for parliamentary process. Hence, it leads to great concern as to what the SCU will actually be doing.
Noble Lords may be interested to learn of a paragraph in the Red Book which comes under the heading, "Press Office best practice". It states:
"Parliamentary papers can also be issued under embargo to the lobby and relevant specialists as confidential final revises (CFRs) which must be signed for. However, as this is a breach of parliamentary privilege, it can only be done with No. 10's agreement and the responsibility must be borne by the Secretary of State personally".
Need I say more? The same Red Book states that,
"Any announcement of new policy must always meet the needs of parliamentary propriety. It must reach all MPs via an Answer or a Statement".
It appears that the Red Book does not consider your Lordships. Perhaps the Minister can say whether all policy decisions arising from the 113 reviews and 37 task forces included in his Answer to me dated 11th February and delivered to me on 12th February will, in the first instance, be reported to Parliament either by way of an Answer or a Statement and that any breach of that will be treated with the sternest action.
10.38 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, there is one dimension of the art of governing in which no one could accuse our present Government of failing; that is, failing to learn from the experiences of the past and of their predecessor. The Government today are an object lesson for us all in how to watch, analyse and digest the realities of a society and then implement conclusions with bold initiatives and uncompromising purpose.
Prime among such realities is that all developed societies now are based on the management of information. In a democracy of Utopia, I would have phrased that without dropping in the word "management". A universal franchise of access to information is a dream of the conviction democrat, but leaves the professional politician—even one with libertarian leanings—with a nagging sense of unease. Perhaps the present Government share the collective belief that so natural and unassailable is the practice of liberty in our nation that it need never be referred to or reinforced in official pronouncements. Perhaps the present Government have ever so slightly confused their

125
hearty embrace of market economics with an affinity for individual freedom so obvious that it never needs to be expressed.
However, we can, in passing, disabuse any party which takes this linkage for granted by giving it the political model of China, a ripalong market-based economy bolted onto a viciously authoritarian political regime. So let us leave freedom on one side as being largely an irrelevance to a government whose priority is the smooth exercise of the management of perception, and congratulate the party opposite, thinly represented tonight, on the almost faultless execution of this policy. I think one must concede that even the Government's natural allies among the commentating classes are not unaware of the importance now being given to the lubrication of the information machinery. But this is not, in itself, unfitting or even distasteful. If you design a machine whose function is to communicate, you have recognised the critical importance of the function itself; and then it is completely logical for that machine to be tended and serviced by experts. For first among the lessons the Government learnt in their later years in opposition was the absolutely bedrock importance of the symbiosis between a modern executive and the media.
It may be that I am straying from the focus of the Question posed by my noble friend this evening. The mandate of the Strategic Communications Unit was spelt out four weeks ago in Written Answers in this House and another place. In passing, an early victim of the unit could itself be the Written Answer. After all, the mechanism of the Written Answer has been a classic billboard for government information for a century at least. Perhaps the Strategic Communications Unit will regard it as de minimis, or beneath contempt compared with the majestic deployment of the big ideas.
Several things engage me in this Question. I read the Written Answers, redundantly, because, of course, they were identical—there is no need for market differentiation between these two target audiences—and as I read, I was reminded of some of the conventions of advertising copywriting: rule one, if you have not anything fresh to say, say things that no one could disagree with; use words such as "achievements" and "themes" and "improve". It makes for feeble ads but is wonderfully soothing to the client.
I confess I am curious about where the emphasis will be in the daily workload of the SCU. Will it find itself performing as a fast response outfit, like a sort of riot police of the information landscape; or will it have more in common with Papal annunciations, a hip, Cool Britannia, source of Internet pronouncements ex cathedra No. 10?
I am also curious—and this follows from what I have just said—about whether the SCU will take control over Excalibur, the instant rebuttal mechanism which did so much to turbocharge media contacts before 1st May. Will the SCU have a focus group capability to test some of its message impact? I would expect no less from the communication professionalism of this initiative. I can visualise some interesting turf wars developing around this body in the area of policy directives from Brussels. Will these have the firepower of the central mission, or
126
will they be in a version of political parenthesis? And how far down the train of communication runs the remit of the SCU? Is it the people's SCU? Lastly, will the SCU need to assess the political colouring of those Civil Service staff co-opted to serve on it?
No, I am being less than fair, because the SCU has got at least one real job, which is to set up this electronic feed flowing from the Prime Minister's office to the departments. I assume that consumer—or in this case Minister—comment will not be welcome on the host website and that the communication architecture will he strictly a one-way traffic. The SCU has another job, too, to write the annual report. For this, I can hardly wait. I would be mildly interested to be told the circulation of pre-publication copies of this document, if only as an insight into the Government's view of their particular, and maybe transient, friends in the media.
What I believe we are seeing here is the evolution in Britain of the whole process of government. While the culture of enlightened companies is moving towards the non-hierarchical, and the empowerment of employees at the edge of the organisation, the culture of government seems to be adding to the notion of hierarchy. My own party felt the same anxieties over loss of control and collected authority to the centre, quite at odds with its historic convictions.
The genius of our present political masters is nowhere better encapsulated than in this creation, the Strategic Communications Unit. The acquisition and retention of power in a communication-rich society, lies in communication. To communicate well demands a mastery of the techniques. Nothing can be left to chance.
And so we edge closer every day to the perpetuation of a system where the alliance between government and the mastery of the media is the entry ticket for power without end. Without the vigilance which is our birthright, at the end of this process, is the schoolyard bully in the silk suit, the soft persuasive voice telling us it's really all for the best.
In these few reflections of mine what word was missing? Probably nobody noticed: the word was Parliament.
10.47 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, three hard acts to follow‡ I begin by quoting what Mr. Peter Mandelson wrote in his book The Blair Revolution (published before the election) about the role of No. 10 Downing Street in the management of strategy. He said that there was need for a stronger political presence in No. 10 providing political advice and contacts which neither the private office nor the Cabinet Office can do because they are not supposed to get involved and cannot meet the Prime Minister's central need: to focus on and manage the Government's political strategy and programme. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that one of the Prime Minister's early decisions was to set up the working party of four civil servants and two political advisers which produced the Mountfield Report, which in due course recommended the establishment of a Strategic Communications Unit. As he said, it would be based in No. 10 and answerable to him. It would work

127
on the basis that communication is an integral part of policy formulation, to develop closer and better working relations between policy civil servants and press officers.
The working party recognised the need to educate policy-making civil servants on the communication strategy which every important initiative or decision would require. Meeting in the Cabinet Office daily under—who else? —Mr. Mandelson's chairmanship, it is clearly a very practical recognition of what is said in the Ministerial Code—that is to say, that decisions on policy lie in the first instance with the Prime Minister. I hope that another object is to ensure, as the Ministerial Code says, that,
"it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament".
In the report Ministers are expressly required to distinguish between the advice available to them by special advisers who can give them political advice and support and the impartial advice of the civil servants. According to the Ministerial Code, they must uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service and must not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code.
The Strategic Communications Unit is probably a sensible measure, but its value to the country depends on some important provisos. Ministers are urged by the writers of the Mountfield Report to take trouble to build a relationship of trust with their Civil Service press officers as well as with their advisers. If they continue to feel, as some still appear to do, that they can only trust the latter and that the civil servants have their own basically unsympathetic agenda, the civil servants will not work well. They need trust and respect and if they have that, combined with the credibility with the media which a well informed, impartial spokesman always enjoys, all will be well.
We must, however, be deeply concerned that, although the Ministerial Code and the Mountfield report stress the paramount importance of Parliament, of keeping it informed and of being at all times accountable and open, it seems not to be happening. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, seem to talk first to the media and to care about presentation above all. That may, ironically, be to the great disadvantage of this new, well co-ordinated, well informed, smooth machine.
The other danger—we have seen an example of it in the Treasury—is that Ministers' apparent preference for the trusted and familiar political adviser over the professional civil servant as a channel for the media will devalue and waste the excellent Civil Service machine. I hope very much that the unit will prove influential enough within government both to restore and maintain Parliament's right-to-know as the first priority and to use the Civil Service as it is so well fitted to be used in the public interest.
Civil servants have been undervalued and even wasted for too long. Mr. Mandelson's predecessor in the Cabinet Office (the then Deputy Prime Minister) actively wished to change the Civil Service ethos which
128
he did not value - except, of course, when it came to selling the civil servants working in the Recruitment and Assessment Service as intellectual property. I hope this Government will not continue the process of market testing, but I hope too that Ministers will lose no time in demonstrating that they put Parliament first and that they trust their civil servants and value and respect the essential Civil Service ethos of impartiality and duty to the country - and of being ready to tell the Minister truths, however hard and unwelcome. Such men and women, if properly valued and trusted, are a priceless asset and may yet save us from media-speak. We do not want or need a White House media circus here. The media tail must not be allowed to wag the governmental dog.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, at this late hour I am tempted to enlarge upon this important topic but being a person of great self-control, I do not propose to do anything of the kind. I merely wish to make two points. First, much as I suspect the motives, ambitions and actions of the present Government, I must admit that there were developments before their time which gave them the possibility of acting as they have done. There has been a down-grading of the public service, an obliteration of the proper boundaries between public and private activity, and the right of people to indulge in both, which goes back some time.
One result which seems to me to be of great importance is that we have had, and are increasingly having at the moment, ill prepared legislation. When British government was the admiration of most of the world it operated on the basis of Ministers spending their time largely in Parliament confronting MPs on all sides of the House, together with their civil servants who were prepared to ensure that what Ministers were putting forward would stand the test of time. If one looks at the great legislation of the early part of this century (and even of the middle of the last century) and compares it with our constant and now inevitable flood of experimentation when it is said, "If we get it wrong this time, we can get it right next time and anyhow we won't let the media know", one becomes rather pessimistic.
This is not the only bad part. What has happened now is something even more fundamental. I believe that there is in the minds of our present rulers a total confusion between themselves as leaders of the victorious party at the polls and holding office under the Crown. Therefore, they are not worried by the fact that in order to achieve this symbiosis they need far more political advisers—or spin doctors if one likes that phrase—than was ever thought necessary before. It is not difficult to find in their utterances an admission of this, of which the creation of the machinery to which we are now directing our attention is one example.
How often since 1st May have we been told that such and such must be accepted by your Lordships because it was in the manifesto, just as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury might say that such and such must be accepted because, after all, it is in the Ten Commandments?

129
There is an idea that the Labour Party manifesto, which is a piece of paper like any other and has no constitutional role whatever, is somehow binding on Parliament and the people. This is a dangerous confusion and one which will not in the end redound to the Government's advantage. As the noble Lord who moved the Motion pointed out, it tends to make the Government spend a great deal of time—we face just one example of it—on the media and, through the media, on the public and on the tours of the country with focus groups and all the other paraphernalia, as if that is more important than the substance. It is the substance that is important, not the promotion of the substance. We do not need a big picture. The big picture is up in the sky. We need competent government to tackle real problems felt by the people, being prepared always to come to both Houses of Parliament and say, "This is what we are doing. Do you like it? If not, tell us and we will go away and think again". A government who believe that Mr. Murdoch is more important than the House of Lords is a government which is riding for a fall.
10.57 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Northesk for initiating this debate. All of those who respect the institution of Parliament will be grateful to him. The excellent contributions of all my noble friends this evening show their appreciation of the role of my noble friend.
An important feature of our institution is that it runs by the mutual consent of the Members, mostly on the basis of conventions and customs and with very few written rules. Almost from the outset of the present Parliament the Government have failed to honour one of those conventions. I refer to the one whereby policy and other important announcements are first made to Parliament and not to the press. On 17th July Madam Speaker instructed Members of the other place:
"I expect any Government, when there is a change of policy to be announced, to announce it to the House, preferably from the Dispatch Box ¨ That can also be done by means of a Written Question".".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/97; col. 531.]
I respectfully agree with Madam Speaker, as do my noble friends who have all remarked on this matter this evening.
We in this House may not always be entitled to be informed first, but we are at least entitled to be told second. In the case of announcements by the Lord Chancellor or other Ministers in this place, this House is entitled to know first. It is a deplorable contempt of and for Parliament for announcements of government policies and activities to be made at meetings outside Parliament or by nods and winks and leaks to selected journalists. As my noble friend has already pointed out, since July the Speaker has commented in the other place on the necessity of announcing changes in policy to Parliament first on no fewer than seven separate occasions. Three of them occurred in the same week, which suggests either a total disregard of the words of the Speaker as well as the convention or a selective form of memory loss by different Ministers.
130
The announcement of the creation of this new Strategic Communications Unit crept quietly into the establishment under the cover of replies to Written Questions in both Houses on 14th January. I do not question the perfectly proper use of planted Questions for that purpose, but this imperceptible, almost diffident, method of announcing its birth makes me wonder whether the new unit intends to carry on how it began. Let us remember that the concept for this unit was as a result of the complaints that were made almost from the beginning of this Government's reign about attempts to politicise the Civil Service, in particular, the attempts by various Ministers to subvert their respective press officers into becoming purveyors of party political propaganda.
That is contrary to the Civil Service code which, in relation to the Government Information Service, requires it to be and I again quote
"objective … not tendentious or polemical … or liable to misrepresentation as being party political".
Not surprisingly, it was followed by the abrupt and well-reported departure of several highly respected professional civil servants. It was as a result of this that the Mountfield Committee examined the problem and came up with the concept which it recommended should be called by the clearly understandable name of the Government Information and Communication Service. However the spin doctors spun and we find ourselves with the somewhat ambiguous name of the Strategic Communications Unit. It is not clear whether it will be making communications about strategy, or indulging in stratagems about whatever it has to communicate.
In fact, the Mountfield Committee said in its report:
"insufficient emphasis is placed by civil servants involved in policy development on the communication strategy that every important decision will require".
Clearly, then, the report is talking about strategy about communications and not communications about the underlying strategic decisions.
I raise that question because with a Government who have mastered the art of double speak, it is not clear why they decided to change the name. I ask it, secondly, because of its terms of reference. I again quote, this time from the Written Answers of 14th January:
"To improve strategic communications so that key government messages are communicated across government. Departmental initiatives and events need to be presented in such a way as to show their coherence with the main themes of the government's strategy. To achieve this, departments must be properly informed of government activity, Ministers must be properly briefed on key government issues at all times, and initiatives must be properly prepared and co-ordinated".…[Official Report, 14/1/98; col. WA 201.]
What on earth does that gobbledegook mean? Is the Strategic Communications Unit designed to keep the public better informed of government activities—especially where that information has a political connotation? Because it sounds very much to me that it is primarily intended to keep Ministers on song, or, shall I say, on message, with government policy. Is it an extension of the Minister without Portfolio's morning prayers briefing sessions? The membership of Mr. Andrew Silverman, the Minister's private secretary, lends support to that suspicion.

131
What has this job specification to do with the comprehensive recommendations of the Mountfield Report which was intended to improve government presentation to the public and to draw the line between legitimate information and party propaganda? Frankly, this job specification announced by the Prime Minister sounds very much like the Department of Administrative Affairs whose famous incumbent was Jim Hacker: a roving brief to interfere in every government department. Whether it will be able to assist the Minister for Overseas Development who complains that Cabinet colleagues are constantly briefing against her, I cannot say. Will it ensure that dissident Labour MPs are not branded by their party's spin doctors as clinically insane? Is it intended to act as a kind of censor of squabbling Ministers? Will it ensure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not again find himself out of tune with No. 10, at least in public? How much is this new department going to cost to run? There is another question.
When we have discovered with whom this unit is going to communicate strategically, we need to know how it will do so. Will it be by press release issued late on a Friday, preferably just before a Recess? Or will it be by a paper filed without publicity in the Library? Or will we all receive individual copies, borne by a messenger, in a cleft stick? There are genuine constitutional concerns about the nature and objectives of this new organ of government.
It is certainly not that envisaged by the Mountfield Committee, which was to draw the distinction between the dissemination of information about the Government's plans, objectives and policies—a perfectly legitimate activity of the press offices of every department—and party politicking, which, while also perfectly legitimate, is no part of the duties of professional civil servants.
I fear that this new department and its sinister companion, the Media Monitoring Unit, is, to paraphrase the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, forged in the white heat of spin doctoring, where it is more important to say the right thing than to do the right thing. The Mountfield Report actually states:
"Heads of information must he involved in all key decisions and strategy developments".
Why? Ministers should make the policy and heads of information should tell it like it is to the press. "Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger".
The Mountfield Report asserts:
"It is not open to appoint Special Advisers or persons of their own choosing from outside the Civil Service Heads of Information".
This new unit, which clearly from its terms of reference is intended to be the supervisor or overlord of Ministers and hence of all the departmental information offices, has two special advisers among its six-person membership.
I referred to constitutional issues in the creation of this new unit. In answer to my own earlier question, I say that indeed it clearly is intended to act as a kind of censor of Ministers. It is clearly intended to control the dissemination and, more important, the content of information to be given to the press and public. It is a
132
symptom of the increasing marginalisation of Parliament in which the Government have been indulging ever since the election. This ranges from the curtailment of Prime Minister's Questions in the other place; the hiving off of the functions of both Houses to a Scottish parliament, which will have no second revising Chamber; the creation of a Welsh assembly to be followed by regional assemblies (just like the old Soviet Union); to the repeated failure of Ministers to give straight answers to simple questions. Labour MPs are recommended to take gardening leave in groups of 50 in their constituencies rather than add to their overwhelming majority in the other place.
The Government continue to try to bully and intimidate your Lordships on the few occasions that your Lordships perform their duty as a revising Chamber, well within the constraints of the Salisbury Convention. They did so even when they lost one vote, not because of what the Opposition did, but for the simple reason that their own Whips messed things up in a way that would have resulted in severe carpeting when I was a Government Whip.
I am both proud and honoured to be a Member of Parliament, as indeed we all are. I have no desire to be an MD; a member of the Duma or a Peoples' Assembly, as in North Korea, meeting every few years for the purpose of paying homage to the Beloved Leader. It is essential, therefore, that all major announcements are made in Parliament first, and one role of practical value that this new unit could perform would be to ensure that all Ministers saw that they were. I view with trepidation any attempt, which it is all too easy to make, to bypass the greatest democratic institution in the world. We are privileged to sit in the Mother of Parliaments. I do not want to see it turned into the mother of all rubber stamps.
11.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, your Lordships may be surprised to learn, after that succession of speeches, that I welcome this debate. It has provided, or I hope it will provide, a valuable opportunity for us to explain in more detail than there has been parliamentary opportunity for so far the very much more limited role than noble Lords seem to think of the Strategic Communications Unit.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, described the launch on 14th January of the Strategic Communications Unit as muted. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seemed to think that it had been sneaked into the public domain, although, with her usual fairness, she recognised that it was perfectly proper to announce it by way of a Written Answer, as indeed it was announced. It is true that a Written Answer is limited in its scope and that the opportunity which we have now to set out the role of the Strategic Communications Unit was not available at the time and has not since been available in either House. That is why I welcome this opportunity.
I shall set out what it is that the unit is intended to do and the way in which it fits into government strategies. First, I confirm, as noble Lords have recognised, that the unit was set up in line with the recommendations

133
of the working group on the Government Information Service, which was published in November of last year. I make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Government Information and Communication Service is not the same as the Strategic Communications Unit; it has not been taken over by the Strategic Communications Unit; it continues with its existing functions as redefined by the Mountfield Report, but they are not the same thing.
The Mountfield Report said—and again noble Lords have properly referred to it—that more needed to be done to improve strategic communications to enable key government messages to be communicated across and outside government. I make it clear that even within government it is intended that that communication should be two-way and not simply from the centre to the outside.
In what way is the unit designed to provide corporate communications advice and assistance? First, it identifies and helps to plan key ministerial announcements and events through the management of the new electronic information system—again some people seemed to think that is sinister—called Agenda which will provide a future diary of government events. Mr. Michael Heseltine set up an exactly comparable system. It did not work very well and it had to be relaunched. However, it is no more sinister than Mr. Heseltine's planned system.
Secondly, it is concerned with planning, in liaison with government departments, the presentation of events to ensure that the Government's long-term messages are effectively communicated. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, in an amusing and elegant speech made what I think is a very important series of analogies with private industry and notably with the advertising industry. Of course, it is always possible for advertising to be a source of distortion and failure to communicate. But fundamentally those who have worked in advertising, as the noble Lord has, if they respect their trade—and many quite properly do—believe that the communication of knowledge, feelings and ideas is a proper function in modern society and that it is desirable that that should be done. Why should that not apply to government?
The noble Lord seemed to think that that is the function of a school-yard bully in a silk suit. I enjoyed that and I looked to make sure that I am wearing my Terylene and cotton suit. But there is nothing remarkable about that. I am reminded in what he said of David Ogilvy's words about the relationship of the copywriter with his client. I am sure the noble Lord will remember. David Ogilvy said:
"If the client moans and sighs, show his logo twice the size. If he still should prove refractory, show a picture of his factory. But only in the direst case should you show the bastard's face".
That would be quite a useful discipline for those involved in government communications as well as elsewhere. So there is nothing improper about it: it is a business analogy to which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has rightly drawn our attention. On that business analogy, as one who has spent a lifetime in business, I do not apologise in any way for our using business communication techniques in government.
134
That follows also with the next role of the Strategic Communications Unit; namely, to ensure that announcements are followed up in a structured and supportive way by developing themes and highlighting their strategic importance. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, of course the policy is paramount. However, if one does not communicate the policy, it will not have the kind of effect that it ought to have. It is a responsibility of government to communicate as well as to decide. That is where the Strategic Communications Unit comes in.
I shall pass over the perhaps more mundane duties of the unit such as raising the quality of information provided through the current government website. I do not know how many of your Lordships have tried it, but the home page says, "updated 4th May 1997", which does not give one a great deal of confidence. Then, as has been referred to, it has to produce the Government's annual report on its performance and the achievements of its objectives. That, of course, was according to an announcement given in August 1997.
So here we have a totally unsinister body, attempting to do for government what every decent business does for itself, in no way breaching any of the codes that exist or, indeed, in any way supplanting the Ministerial Code about relationships with Parliament or the provisions of the resolutions of both Houses of Parliament on 19th and 20th of March of last year.
Therefore, what arises from this debate? Frankly, I was a little taken aback because we have had no more than assertions. We have been told this evening, quite rightly, that Madam Speaker said on 17th July that announcements should be made first to Parliament. We have also been told that she said so on more than one occasion. But what do we have as examples of breaches of that code? Well, they are pathetic. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, made a better attempt that anyone else to set them out, so perhaps I may turn to what he said. The noble Lord said that on 28th January he asked a question and received a Written Answer about a dependent territories White Paper—
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it was not a Written Answer; it was an answer in a debate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:—I beg the noble Lord's pardon. However, it does not make any difference to the issue. The noble Lord appeared to be claiming that the speech of the Foreign Secretary to the Dependent Territories' Association was a major policy statement. It was not.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, one of the statements made by the Foreign Secretary in that speech was:
"We have decided to change the name of dependent territories to United Kingdom Overseas Territories. This will require legislation".

135
If legislation is required, I believe that it should be announced to the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is that a major policy statement, my Lords? I am astonished at that definition—
Lord Chesham: My Lords, perhaps I may have one more moment of the Minister's time. Can the noble Lord give me a definition of the word "major"? I believe that a major policy statement like,
"civilian flights will be allowed into Ascension Island",
may not be major for this country; but such a statement is very major to the inhabitants of Ascension Island and St. Helena.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords; it is important to them. I accept that fact. I do want to lower the tone of tonight's debate, but what the Foreign Secretary did was to outline the findings reached so far in the independent territories review. He did not announce a major policy change on citizenship but confined himself to saying that the proposal was under consideration. It is currently under consideration with the departments which are likely to be affected, and an announcement will be made when a collective decision has been reached. Therefore I have simply to deny that this was a major policy statement.
The noble Lord then referred to the unfortunate case, for which I have apologised earlier this afternoon, where a journalist received his Written Answer before he received it. I have apologised fully and I thought that I had set out—I certainly intended to set out in full—the reasons that error occurred. He now asks me whether the Strategic Communications Unit was involved in any way. I find that offensive. If it had been involved in any way—and it certainly was not—I would have told the noble Lord in my apology. I regret very much that he should make an assertion of that kind.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I hope I may have one more word. In his very composed and well accepted apology for what happened last Thursday the noble Lord advised me that he would keep me informed as to what would happen and would make an announcement as was necessary. I was sitting on the steps of the Throne at 2.35 this afternoon when the noble Lord came up to me and said, "I am making a statement now". That is hardly keeping me advised as to what was happening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe it is doing exactly that. The only other example that I have heard from any noble Lord as regards any disrespect to Parliament is the noble Lord's repeated assertion that the role of my noble friend Lord Whitty this afternoon was in some way disrespectful to this House. The House decided it was not. I have never heard such weak support for the rather wild assertions which have been made by a number of noble Lords regarding disrespect for Parliament than I have heard this afternoon.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. This evening several noble Lords mentioned that the Speaker in the other place had on seven different occasions pointed out that matters had to be announced first in Parliament rather than somewhere else. This is a timed debate and we had 11 minutes in which to speak. The Minister could not really have expected us to itemise the seven occasions but one would like him to be able to agree that the Speaker would not have commented on those seven occasions unless matters had occurred that made it necessary for her to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if allegations are being made in this House they should be made openly in the Chamber and I do not think it should be left to mere unsupported assertion. If we want to go into that sort of argument, I remind the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite of the situation with the previous Cabinet where the Thursday afternoon edition of the Evening Standard frequently, in fact normally, contained a full report of what happened in Cabinet. I remind noble Lords opposite of what happened when the election was announced less than a year ago on 17th March 1997 deliberately so as to avoid a report to Parliament from the Downey Commission, although it was not intended that the election should take place for six weeks. I remind noble Lords opposite about the basic pension plan which was announced on 5th March last year in a government press conference—not a Conservative press conference. No statement was ever made to the House of Commons.
In case we should think that that is only what happened immediately before the election, I remind noble Lords of the 1989 announcement of millions of pounds of support for the egg industry. A press announcement was made but no announcement was ever made in the House of Commons. As regards the Guildford and Woolwich bombings, a press release was made before a Written Answer and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, had to make apologies to the House.
I have sought to investigate the reality of these allegations. I have found no evidence provided by noble Lords this evening that they have any significant reality, or that there is any significant deterioration in the respect which this Government have for Parliament. I can confirm to noble Lords that the reality is that the formation of the Strategic Communications Unit does not affect in any way the duty that is placed upon Ministers in paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code that,
"Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament".
This Question and the debate have been largely misconceived.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Development Policy
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What progress they are making in the European Union towards greater coherence in policies of direct or indirect significance for economic and social development in the less developed countries of the world. [HL551]

  Lord Whitty
  The Government's development White Paper commits us to work to ensure the full range of domestic and international policies affecting developing countries take account of the UK's sustainable development objectives. The European Union's commitment to policy consistency is set out in Articles 130 u and v of the Treaty of Maastricht. The Government are therefore working with European partners for consistency between policies in the areas of development, environment, trade, agriculture and investment amongst others.

  An example of recent progress is implementation of the World Trade Organisation's Least Developed Countries (LDC) Initiative. Under the UK Presidency, agreement has now been reached on how to implement the EU's commitment to extend Lomé equivalent preferential trade terms to the nine non-ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) LDCs.

  Income Disparities
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they endorse the calculations in the 1997 UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) Annual Report that global wealth-poverty polarisation has become greater since 1971 with 80 per cent. of the world's population taking a markedly decreasing share of world income; and what are the implications of such a trend for their international security and international development policies. [HL552]

  Lord Whitty
  Her Majesty's Government share the widespread international concern about the increased income inequality revealed in the UNCTAD report and agree that we should work to ensure that people everywhere can reap the benefits from the rapid changes that are taking place in the world economy.

  Our main development concern is to increase the income and well-being of the people at the lowest end of the income distribution. Her Majesty's Government are committed to working to try to meet the international targets for poverty elimination. We will work to achieve this both through our aid programme, and through the full range of our policies affecting developing countries.

  Poverty Eradication
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What action they are taking as holders of the Presidency of the European Union to encourage other member states to adopt the same priorities as those established in the recent White Paper Eliminating World Poverty and, in particular, to harmonise and strengthen contributions by all member states both to the United Nations multilateral institutions and to the international financial institutions. [HL577]

  Lord Whitty
  During the UK Presidency, we will work with our European Union partners to try to secure their commitment to the Organisation for Economic Co-op Development's (OECD) 21st Century Strategy and international development targets. We are planning to discuss how to put the strategy into practice in our programmes at a high level seminar which we will hold in March for the development Ministers from member states, appropriate European Commissioners, and representatives from the European Parliament's Development Committee. We will also seek to make sure that poverty eradication is at the heart of the EU's Lome negotiating mandate.

  We will also continue to work closely with all our EU partners across the international financial institutions and the UN's development agencies in order, where possible, to reach common positions on the governance and policies of those institutions.

  Animal Identification by Microchip
  Lord Hooson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, parallel with any scheme they have for micro-chipping cattle and sheep for identification purposes, they will consider a similar scheme for cats and dogs as a necessary precondition for a change in the quarantine laws. [HL488]

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue)
  On 2 October last year my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a scientific assessment and review of quarantine, and alternatives to it, by the Advisory Group on Quarantine. Identification of imported cats and dogs by microchip forms part of some of the options being assessed by the group.

  British Registered Fishing Vessels
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When the proposals for ensuring that all registered British fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with the United Kingdom were sent to the European Commission, and when they expect a response; and [HL464]
  WA3
  Whether they will publish the proposals for ensuring that all registered British fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with the United Kingdom which have been sent to the European Commission. [HL465]

  Lord Donoughue
  The proposals for ensuring that all British registered fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with the United Kingdom were sent to the European Commission for consideration at the beginning of January. Discussions with the Commission are continuing. Copies of the proposals have been circulated to the industry, and placed in the Library of the House.

  National Lottery Awards: Internet Publication
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in the interests of public accountability, they will ask the National Lottery to publish details on their web site of the awards made. [HL545]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  Details of National Lottery awards are available on the department's website, www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Year ended

  31 March 1967

  31 March 1977

  31 March 1987

  31 March 1997

  Staff years planned 1998–99

  Staff in Post

  17,576

  29,389

  26,090

  23,071

  23,245

  Staff focused on ports of entry

  Data not available

  Data not available

  8,0921

  5,649

  5,461

  Percentage

  31 per cent.

  24.5 per cent.

  23.5 per cent.

  1 For "Staff focused on ports of entry" we have used the most appropriate definitions of activity from information published at the relevant time. Organisational changes mean that they are not precisely the same between 1987 and the present date.

  Equal Pay
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have plans to introduce any measures to expedite progress towards equal pay. [HL497]

  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)
  The Government's new earnings survey for April 1997 shows that women's average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, were 80.2 per cent. of men's, and, although this difference is still disappointingly large, it has shrunk a little more every year for 10 years. Government policies will enable more women to train for and enter higher status jobs, and will encourage employers to pay full and fair rates. In addition, the introduction of a national minimum wage will help to reduce the gap between men's and women's pay, since women form a large proportion of those workers who will benefit from this measure. The Equal Opportunities Commission is currently undertaking a review of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Equal Pay Act 1970, and

  Ministerial Privileges
  Lord Tebbit
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether Ministers receive any official consideration denied to sexual partners. [HL503]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  Each case is decided on its own circumstances and in the light of the public interest.

  Lord Tebbit
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many sexual partners of Ministers, other than spouses, are currently housed in accommodation financed by the taxpayer. [HL506]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  I am not accountable for the private lives of Ministers.

  HM Customs and Excise: Staff Numbers
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the total staff of the UK Customs and Excise at the end of 1997, as compared with 1987, 1977, and 1967 and what will be the number on current plans in 1999 identifying in each case the proportion of staff whose work is focused on ports of entry. [HL444]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  The number of staff in post for the years requested are:

  its draft has highlighted the need for greater understanding of equal pay issues. The Government will consider the review when it is formally presented later this year.

  GCSE: European Studies
  Lord Thomson of Monifieth
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why, in view of their commitment to membership of the European Union, they have deleted European studies from the list of available GCSE subjects. [HL570]

  Baroness Blackstone
  It is for the GCSE Awarding Bodies, not the Government, to determine what GCSEs to offer in subjects that are not part of the statutory National Curriculum. Awarding Bodies' decisions take account of factors such as levels of demand for the qualification, the costs of offering the syllabus and the availability of the expertise necessary to provide for external assessment of candidates' performance.

  Treatment Costs
  Lord Morris of Manchester
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the current cost to the NHS of prescription of drug treatments for cancer, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease and depression [HL521]

  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
  The available information is shown in the table. The information does not include drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals, so does not represent the total cost of prescribing these drugs. It is not possible to identify the indication for which medicines are prescribed, so some medicines included in the cost data may have been used to treat other conditions. The information is for the year 1996.

  The net ingredient cost of prescription items dispensed for the treatment of cancer, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease and depression, 1996

  England

  £ thousands

  Cancer1

  76,473.10

  Schizophrenia2

  28,462.60

  Alzheimer's disease3

  —

  Depression4

  191,242.80

  Notes:

  1. Drugs used for the treatment of cancer are those described in the British National Formulary section 8.1, "Cytotoxic drugs", 8.2.4. "Interferons", 8.2.5 "aldesleukin" and 8.3 "Sex hormones and hormone antagonists in malignant disease". Other drugs will also be used to treat cancer patients. It is not possible to separate these for those used for the treatment of cancer only.

  (2) Drugs used for the treatment of schizophrenia are those indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia in British National Formulary section 4.2, "Drugs used in psychoses and related disorders". Some of these drugs may be used for other conditions.

  (3) Drugs used for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease are those described in the British National Formulary section 4.11, "Drugs for dementia". None of the drugs was dispensed in England in 1996. The net ingredient cost of drugs used in Alzheimer's disease between April 1997 and September 1997 was £346.4 thousand.

  (4) Drugs used for the treatment of depression are those described in the British National Formulary section 4.3, "Antidepressant drugs".

  (5) The date cover all prescriptions dispensed by the community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  (6) The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  (7) The therapeutic classifications are based on British National Formulary, Number 30 (September 1995) except for the classification in note 3, which is based on British National Formulary Number 32 (September 1996).

  Women and Smoking
  Lord Braine of Wheatley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they are taking to encourage women to give up smoking and whether any medicines designed to assist those wishing to give up smoking are available on prescription. [HL526]

  Baroness Jay of Paddington
  In 1997–98, the Government are funding a Health Education WA6
  Authority-run adult smoking education campaign costing £5.5 million. The campaign identifies five key target groups, and two of these groups are adults in the 16–24 age group, particularly women and pregnant women.

  The Government are also currently considering other ways in which to help people give up smoking, including the role of nicotine replacement therapies, as part of their strategy to reduce tobacco consumption.

  Our conclusions will form part of the Tobacco Control White Paper, which will he published later this year.

  Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill 1967
  Lord Braine of Wheatley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What assistance was provided by the then Government to the proponents of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill, 1966–67; and whether Parliamentary Counsel provided assistance. [HL470]

  Baroness Jay of Paddington
  On Wednesday 18 January 1967, the then Minister of State at the Home Office, made the following statement to Standing Committee F on the Government's position on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill:"The Government's collective view on the Bill is one of neutrality, as it was on Second Reading. We believe as a Government that it is for the Committee to determine what shall be the form of the Bill when it emerges from Committee. We have in mind that the Second Reading was passed by an overwhelming vote in the House and, because of that, the Government have given. and will continue to give, all possible drafting assistance to the promoter of the Bill.
  "The Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and myself are here to help the Committee in every possible way and to advise about the practicability and feasibility of the Amendments proposed. But we are here as individual members of the Committee, and we have our individual rights as members of the Committee, so that when it comes to voting on Amendments we shall exercise that individual right and vote according to our individual views".

  Abortion Policy
  Lord Braine of Wheatley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they provide funds to any organisations which campaign against abortion. [HL502]

  Baroness Jay of Paddington
  The Government do not fund any organisation to campaign for or against abortion. We provide funding to a number of organisations involved in the provision of services, advice and information on family planning, reproductive health and services for pregnant women. In the United Kingdom, these include:

  Family Planning Association

  Brook Advisory Centres

  Catholic Marriage Care

  Scottish Family Planning Association

  WA7

  Natural Family Planning Association

  Society for Information and Counselling on Miscarriage

  Welsh Family Planning Association

  LIFE (Northern Ireland)

  Family Planning Association (Northern Ireland)

  SATFA (Support Around Termination for Fetal Abnormality)

  CHILD (National Infertility Support Network)

  ISSUE (The National Fertility Association)

  In addition, the Department for International Development (DFID) invested £70 million in reproductive and sexual health in 1996. DFID makes grants to a wide range of organisations involved in improving reproductive health throughout the world.

  The views of organisations on abortion related issues are not sought as part of the funding process.

  European Structural Funds: Reform
  Lord Dormand of Easington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What proposals they have made for the reform of the European structural funds and the criteria for their allocation. [HL463]

  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury)
  Following the publication of the Commission's communication Agenda 2000 in July, the Government are discussing the reform of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds with the Commission and other member states, with the aim of securing a package which is fair to all member states—especially to the United Kingdom and its regions—affordable and durable, and simpler and more efficient. In these discussions, we have suggested that GDP per capita should be a factor taken into account in the allocation of the funds.

  Northern Ireland: Analysis of GCSE and A-Level Results
  Baroness Blatch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish data for Northern Ireland showing for comprehensive schools, modern schools, grammar schools, state schools, independent schools and all schools separately, the percentage of all 16-year-old pupils in each of the years 1994 to 1997 passing GCSE examinations with grades A* to C in the following subjects: mathematics, English, English literature, sciences (showing separately percentages for single award science, double award science, physics, chemistry and biology), French, history and geography, showing separately for each type of state school the percentages for local education authority schools, voluntary schools (including together voluntary controlled, voluntary aided, and special agreement schools), grant-maintained schools and, where appropriate, City Technology Colleges (CTCs),
  WA8
  and including for each category of school, the number of schools and the number of 16-year-old pupils; and [HL450]

  Whether they will publish data for Northern Ireland showing for comprehensive schools, modern schools, grammar schools, state schools, independent schools and all schools separately, the percentage of all 16 year-old pupils in each of the years 1994 to 1997 passing GCSE examinations with grades A* to C in the following combinations of subjects: mathematics and English; mathematics, English and one science, mathematics, English, one science, French and either history or geography, showing data for each combination of subjects for boys, girls and all pupils and showing separately for each type of state school the percentages for local education authority schools, voluntary schools (including together voluntary controlled, voluntary aided, and special agreement schools) grant-maintained schools and, where appropriate CTCs; and [HL451]

  Whether they will publish for Northern Ireland for comprehensive schools, grammar schools, modern schools, independent schools, FEFC schools and colleges and for all institutions in each of the years 1994 to 1997 giving the number of pupils in each of the subjects: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, English literature, history, geography, French and economics; entering for A-level, passing A-level and obtaining grade A at A-level, together with, for each kind of institution. the average A-level points obtained per pupil. [HL455]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)
  I refer the noble Lady to the Answer I gave her on 11 February 1998,Official Report, columns 205–206.

  Postal Codes in Telephone Directories
  Viscount Tenby
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in order to facilitate postal deliveries, they will encourage British Telecom to include postal codes in their telephone directory. [HL416]

  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis)
  The regulation of directory enquiries is a matter for Oftel. I am advised by Oftel that there is no legal requirement on BT under its licence to provide printed telephone directories. The only licence obligation that BT has is that where it publishes and makes available directories to its customers generally, it is obliged to make these directories available on written request to any person in the United Kingdom. It is therefore not possible for Oftel to instruct BT to provide post codes in its telephone directories. It is a commercial matter for BT to decide whether or not it includes post codes in its printed directories. I understand that the Post Office has its own telephone helpline for customers who have queries about postal codes. The Government have no plans to encourage BT to include postal codes in its telephone directories.

  Lifetime Homes
  Lord Swinfen
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 21 May (WA 7), whether they have completed their consideration of the responses to the consultation on extending Part M of the building regulations, covering access and facilities for disabled people to dwellings, and when they propose to publish their decision. [HL512]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)
  We have concluded our consideration of the responses to the consultation. I expect that a statement will be made shortly.

  Diabetic Drivers
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have any plans to introduce further restrictions on insulin-dependent diabetics who drive cars and motorcycles. [HL563]

  Baroness Hayman
  No.

  Financial Fraud: Jury Trial
  Lord Bruce of Donington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to review alternative methods of traditional jury trial in serious fraud cases. [HL633]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
  The Government are determined that there should be effective measures in place for tackling financial fraud.

  The Government recognise that there are concerns that the present system for handling some major complex fraud trials is not working satisfactorily. Therefore, we have today issued a consultation document which has been placed in the Library. This invites views on the principle of whether the system is likely to operate better and with a greater degree of public confidence if, in a small number of complex fraud trials, a traditional jury were to be replaced by another method of determining the facts. Views are also sought on four possible alternative methods of trial. The Government have not reached a conclusion on whether the ending of jury trial in serious fraud cases is desirable in principle nor formed an opinion on any particular option for change and will not do so until the consultation process is complete. The purpose of the consultation is to provide a full opportunity for the principle of change to be considered in the context of the problems presented by these cases and possible alternative trial methods.

  Comments on the document are invited by 30 April 1998 and we shall consider them all carefully before
  WA10
  reaching any conclusions as to whether any changes should be made.

  Passport Fees
  Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have for passport fees. [HL632]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  The Privy Council has approved an Order in Council, the Consular Fees Order 1998, which gives authority for an increase in passport fees on 26 March. The fee for a standard 32-page passport will increase from £18 to £21 and for a 48-page passport from £27 to £31. The fee for amending an existing passport will increase from £5 to £11, to reflect the economic cost. The cost of a separate passport for children will be £11 for a passport valid for five years. An additional charge of £10 will be introduced for those making applications in person in the United Kingdom and for applications made abroad to reflect the greater cost of providing these services. The fee for a collective passport, for organised trips for schools and youth groups, will remain unchanged at £40.

  This is the first general increase in passport fees since November 1992 and for the over 80 per cent. of applicants who apply by post is in line with the level of inflation for the period. In relation to the cost of travel abroad, a fee of £21 for a standard 10-year passport still represents very good value for money.

  Prison Service Resources
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the resources available to the Prison Service. [HL631]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  Following the Audit of Prison Service Resources last summer, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made available to the Prison Service additional funding of £43 million over two years to increase capacity and regime activity. In the event, the service has done well in containing costs and has not had to call on the extra provision for 1997–98.

  My right honourable friend is now making available £112 million in 1998–99 on top of the existing budget of £1,704 million.

  This will be used to fund continued use of Her Majesty's Prison Weare, to build six more houseblocks, to fund conversion of accommodation to cell usage to hold extra prisoners in new prisons and to carry out repairs on the prison estate. It provides additional staffing and funding for regime activities, to keep prisoners constructively occupied.

  With this money, this Government have provided for 1,540 new places in prisons and have supported the placing of an additional 2,280 prisoners in existing accommodation.

  Family Court Child Welfare Services
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to improve the family court welfare work of the Probation Service and other related services.

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  As part of the comprehensive spending review, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, my right honourable and noble friend the Lord Chancellor, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales are considering the range of services currently provided to the courts on child welfare matters within family law by the Probation Service, Guardian ad Litem and Reporting Officer Service and the Official Solicitor's Department. We believe that a new integrated service subsuming the work of each of the above could provide an improved service to the courts, better safeguard the interests of children, reduce wasteful overlaps and so increase efficiency.

  The Home Secretary has therefore agreed with his right honourable friends that further detailed work involving practitioners and other users of the services should be undertaken to form the basis for public consultation.

  The detailed terms of reference for the work are as follows:

  To identify the range of welfare services currently provided by the Probation Service, Guardian ad Litem and Reporting Officer Service and the children's work of the Official Solicitor's Department and other agencies in family proceedings, and to consider the scope for improvements to the effectiveness of their work through the creation of a new unified service.

  To make proposals on the structure of a new service; to provide preliminary analysis of the estimated costs and benefits as a basis for public consultation; and to consider the implications for any new structure of the Government's plans to establish a Welsh Assembly.

  Asylum Seekers: Unaccompanied Minors
  The Earl of Sandwich
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many unaccompanied minors are currently detained in Campsfield House and other centres of detention for asylum seekers, of what ages, and from which countries. [HL514]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  It is our policy not to detain unaccompanied minors save only in very exceptional circumstances.

  There are no persons currently detained under Immigration Act powers whom the Immigration Service accept are unaccompanied minors. However, as I stated in my Written Answer of 27 November 1997 (WA 137), cases do inevitably arise where the exact age of an
  WA12
  individual is in dispute. I regret that no comprehensive central record is held of age dispute cases.

  I would like to take this opportunity to improve upon my previous Answer which, on reflection, was not as clear as it might have been. The third paragraph of that answer may have given the impression that the Immigration Service is involved directly in referring age dispute cases to a paediatrician. That is not, in fact, the case. While the Immigration Service liaises closely with the Refugee Council's Panel of Advisers for Unaccompanied Refugee Children, it is the panel which may advise legal representatives to involve a paediatrician. I am sorry if the previous answer caused any confusion.

  Wales: Analysis of A-Level Results
  Baroness Blatch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish for Wales for comprehensive schools, grammar schools, modern schools, independent schools, FEFC schools and colleges and for all institutions in each of the years 1994 to 1997 giving the number of pupils in each of the subjects—mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, English literature, history, geography, French and economics: entering for A-level, passing A-level and obtaining Grade A at A-level, together with, for each kind of institution, the average A-level points obtained per pupil. [HL454]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  The information requested on A-level entries and passes is given in the following tables. Readily available information on the average point score is given for those entering two or more A-levels and those entering fewer than 2 A-levels (or AS level equivalent) separately, as is usually published. There is disproportionate cost involved in producing an A-level point score for A-levels alone. There are no "modern" or "grammar" schools in Wales.

  A-level entries and passes for selected subjects, 1994

  Number of pupils:

  entered for A level

  passing A level

  obtaining grade A

  Comprehensive schools (a)

  Mathematics (b)

  2,044

  1,723

  496

  Physics

  1,189

  911

  199

  Chemistry

  1,443

  1,097

  202

  Biology (c)

  1,577

  1,156

  190

  English literature

  2,395

  2,128

  263

  History

  1,694

  1,487

  230

  Geography

  1,814

  1,619

  225

  French

  1,136

  1,025

  169

  Economics

  1,060

  839

  126

  Independent schools

  Mathematics (b)

  269

  255

  125

  Physics

  157

  146

  68

  Chemistry

  227

  208

  90

  Biology (c)

  205

  193

  66

  English literature

  170

  163

  43

  History

  141

  130

  21

  Geography

  150

  139

  28

  French

  136

  128

  40

  Economics

  89

  68

  10

  WA13

  A-level entries and passes for selected subjects, 1994

  Number of pupils:

  entered for A level

  passing A level

  obtaining grade A

  Further Education Colleges

  Mathematics (b)

  787

  567

  150

  Physics

  271

  226

  56

  Chemistry

  472

  332

  55

  Biology (c)

  649

  445

  49

  English literature

  915

  741

  81

  History

  611

  435

  68

  Geography

  379

  333

  45

  French

  304

  284

  54

  Economics

  293

  228

  44

  All schools and colleges (d)

  Mathematics (b)

  3,100

  2,545

  771

  Physics

  1,617

  1,283

  323

  Chemistry

  2,142

  1,637

  347

  Biology (c)

  2,431

  1,794

  305

  English literature

  3,480

  3,032

  387

  History

  2,446

  2,052

  319

  Geography

  2,343

  2,091

  298

  French

  1,576

  1,437

  263

  Economics

  1,442

  1,135

  180

  (a) LEA and grant maintained secondary schools.

  (b) All syllabuses including statistics.

  (c) Includes human biology and social biology.

  (d) Includes special schools and pupil referral units.

  A-level entries and passes for selected subjects, 1995

  Number of pupils:

  entered for A level

  passing A level

  obtaining grade A

  Comprehensive schools (a)

  Mathematics (b)

  2,012

  1,709

  546

  Physics

  1,099

  900

  207

  Chemistry

  1,432

  1,176

  239

  Biology (c)

  1,507

  1,190

  192

  English literature

  2,016

  1,892

  280

  History

  1,586

  1,397

  212

  Geography

  1,563

  1,366

  191

  French

  992

  899

  145

  Economics

  861

  701

  113

  Independent schools

  Mathematics (b)

  269

  241

  96

  Physics

  138

  123

  44

  Chemistry

  190

  176

  47

  Biology (c)

  166

  150

  34

  English literature

  179

  178

  62

  History

  132

  127

  11

  Geography

  148

  136

  29

  French

  121

  117

  29

  Economics

  87

  76

  13

  Further Education Colleges

  Mathematics (b)

  757

  566

  155

  Physics

  295

  230

  61

  Chemistry

  469

  342

  47

  Biology (c)

  707

  495

  53

  English literature

  862

  733

  91

  History

  608

  453

  59

  Geography

  399

  333

  40

  French

  366

  323

  55

  Economics

  245

  169

  30

  All schools and colleges (d)

  Mathematics (b)

  3,038

  2,516

  797

  Physics

  1,532

  1,253

  312

  Chemistry

  2,091

  1,694

  333

  Biology (c)

  2,380

  1,835

  279

  WA14

  A-level entries and passes for selected subjects, 1995

  Number of pupils:

  entered for A level

  passing A level

  obtaining grade A

  English literature

  3,057

  2,803

  433

  History

  2,326

  1,977

  282

  Geography

  2,110

  1,835

  260

  French

  1,479

  1,339

  229

  Economics

  1,193

  946

  156

  (a) LEA and grant maintained secondary schools.

  (b) All syllabuses including statistics.

  (c) Includes human biology and social biology.

  (d) Includes special schools and pupil referral units.

  A-level entries and passes for selected subjects, 1996

  Number of pupils:

  Entered for A level

  passing A level

  Obtaining grade A

  Comprehensive schools (a)

  Mathematics (b)

  1,955

  1,684

  438

  Physics

  1,135

  918

  206

  Chemistry

  1,376

  1,160

  234

  Biology (c)

  1,522

  1,280

  216

  English literature

  2,110

  2,019

  292

  History

  1,610

  1,469

  222

  Geography

  1,605

  1,420

  218

  French

  1,157

  1,065

  236

  Economics

  838

  741

  125

  Independent schools

  Mathematics (b)

  268

  248

  106

  Physics

  152

  141

  41

  Chemistry

  196

  186

  59

  Biology (c)

  180

  163

  41

  English literature

  146

  145

  43

  History

  114

  104

  25

  Geography

  138

  127

  32

  French

  124

  120

  33

  Economics

  84

  75

  14

  Further Education Colleges

  Mathematics (b)

  685

  512

  111

  Physics

  300

  242

  55

  Chemistry

  455

  342

  45

  Biology (c)

  654

  472

  55

  English literature

  702

  637

  65

  History

  594

  475

  52

  Geography

  385

  332

  35

  French

  368

  341

  71

  Economics

  261

  198

  13

  All schools and colleges (d)

  Mathematics (b)

  2,908

  2,444

  655

  Physics

  1,587

  1,301

  302

  Chemistry

  2,027

  1,688

  338

  Biology (c)

  2,356

  1,915

  312

  English literature

  2,958

  2,801

  400

  History

  2,318

  2,048

  299

  Geography

  2,128

  1,879

  285

  French

  1,649

  1,526

  340

  Economics

  1,183

  1,014

  152

  (a) LEA and grant maintained secondary schools.

  (b) All syllabuses including statistics.

  (c) Includes human biology and social biology.

  (d) Includes special schools and pupil referral units.

  WA15

  A-level entries and passes for selected subjects, 1997

  Number of pupils:

  entered for A level

  passing A level

  obtaining grade A

  Comprehensive schools (a)

  Mathematics (b)

  2,016

  1,819

  519

  Physics

  1,154

  1,010

  197

  Chemistry

  1,420

  1,257

  253

  Biology (c)

  1,713

  1,529

  243

  English literature

  2,177

  2,110

  343

  History

  1,614

  1,496

  297

  Geography

  1,690

  1,616

  170

  French

  1,045

  945

  221

  Economics

  757

  685

  118

  Independent schools

  Mathematics (b)

  290

  272

  117

  Physics

  176

  156

  53

  Chemistry

  228

  217

  76

  Biology (c)

  223

  205

  83

  English Literature

  159

  157

  44

  History

  94

  89

  18

  Geography

  139

  133

  19

  French

  117

  112

  36

  Economics

  91

  73

  10

  Average A-level point score per pupil for schools and colleges in Wales

  Pupils entered for fewer than 2 A-levels or AS equivalent (b)

  Pupils entered for 2 or more A AS equivalent (b)

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Comprehensive schools (c)

  2.9

  3.2

  2.8

  2.6

  14.4

  14.9

  15.5

  16.0

  Independent schools

  4.2

  4.4

  3.7

  4.7

  20.1

  19.5

  19.2

  19.7

  Further Education colleges

  3.3

  3.3

  3.2

  3.1

  12.1

  12.1

  12.8

  13.9

  All schools and colleges (d)

  3.2

  3.3

  3.1

  3

  14.2

  14.4

  15.0

  15.7

  (a) A level point score is calculated on the following basis:

  A-levels: Grade A=10 points, B=8, C=6,D=4,E=2.

  AS examinations: Grade A=5 points, B=4,C=3,E=1.

  (b) AS levels are counted as half an A-level.

  (c) LEA and grant maintained secondary schools.

  (d) Includes special schools and pupil referral units.

  WA16

  A-level entries and passes for selected subjects, 1997

  Number of pupils:

  entered for A level

  passing A level

  obtaining grade A

  Further Education Colleges

  Mathematics (b)

  694

  586

  174

  Physics

  308

  278

  78

  Chemistry

  465

  402

  82

  Biology (c)

  621

  505

  65

  English literature

  679

  629

  82

  History

  600

  506

  71

  Geography

  336

  317

  18

  French

  311

  287

  66

  Economics

  218

  163

  13

  All schools and colleges (d)

  Mathematics (b)

  3,000

  2,677

  810

  Physics

  1,638

  1,444

  328

  Chemistry

  2,113

  1,876

  411

  Biology (c)

  2,557

  2,239

  391

  English literature

  3,015

  2,896

  469

  History

  2,308

  2,091

  386

  Geography

  2,165

  2,066

  207

  French

  1,473

  1,344

  323

  Economics

  1,066

  921

  141

  (a) LEA and grant mainted secondary schools.

  (b) All syllabuses including statistics.

  (c) Includes human biology and social biology.

  (d) Includes special schools and pupil referral units.