Sitting of 12 January 1998

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

    Gulf War (Illnesses)
    Helen Jones: What research the Government are undertaking into illnesses possibly related to Gulf war service. [20196]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): In addition to two existing epidemiological studies, we are undertaking a major programme of research into the possible health effects of the combination of vaccines and tablets which British troops were given during the Gulf war to protect them against the threat of Iraqi biological and chemical warfare agents.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the research that is being done. Does he accept the need to disseminate that information? What steps will he take to make the results of the research known both to Gulf war veterans and to members of the general public?
    Mr. Robertson: In the normal course of events, that question would have been answered by the Minister for
    2
    the Armed Forces but, as the House knows, the tragic death of his wife last Thursday means that he cannot be with us today. I know that hon. Members would want their condolences sent to my hon. Friend at this time of bereavement.
    My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has an extremely good record in these matters. Not only has he had three meetings with representatives of the veterans' organisations: he has made it clear that all those who believe that they have been affected will have access to advice through the medical assessment programme; that appropriate research will be undertaken—and new projects have already been started in that area—that maximum information will be put into the public domain; and that all information relevant to the circumstances that applied in that war to the forces who served in it will be made public.
    I draw the House's attention to the words of the Royal British Legion:
    "The Legion has no axe to grind for this, or any other government, but it, with most of the Gulf War Veterans Organisations believes that the new Minister has made a determined and positive attempt to urgently review the cases of those who are unwell and to speedily bring a conclusion to this very real problem."
    I strongly agree with the Royal British Legion's view.
    Mr. Viggers: I support the Government's vigorous approach to investigations into Gulf war syndrome, and rise principally to say that all hon. Members would wish to be associated with the Secretary of State's words. The Minister for the Armed Forces has many friends on both sides of the House and we would all wish to express to him our deep sympathy for his loss.
    Mr. Robertson: I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words. When I go to the funeral with a number of other hon. Members tomorrow, I shall take those sentiments with me.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is my right hon. Friend sure that Gulf war veterans, such as Mr. Ritchie Turnbull,

    3
    Mr. Mark Doyle and Mr. David Robertson from my constituency, can see consultants of their choice about the illnesses from which they suffer? Does he understand that cash-strapped health authorities may not want constituents to travel long distances to see such consultants? May I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces for the excellent way in which he has tackled those problems during the past seven short months?
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words about my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. We have always made it clear that, where there are problems with access to NHS services—we recognise that problems are inevitable, especially where illnesses have not been pinned down or made specific—we shall do our best to ensure that appropriate attention is paid to them. The priority that we have set ourselves is that Gulf war veterans will be dealt with openly, sympathetically and seriously and that, wherever problems in the system arise, we shall take immediate action to deal with them where we can.
    Mr. Hancock: Will the Secretary of State pass on the condolences, prayers and thoughts of Liberal Democrat Members on the sad and tragic loss of the wife of the Minister for the Armed Forces and tell him that our thoughts are with him and his family?
    I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces for their work on behalf of Gulf war veterans who are service men. May I also draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that, of the 1,520 claims that the Ministry of Defence has received so far, a number have come from civilians who were in the Gulf, such as my constituent Mr. John Laffey, who believes that he has not be able to work for the past four and a half years because of illnesses that he contracted in the Gulf? Those civilians should not be disadvantaged. Will the Ministry support and help them: they were not enlisted into the armed forces, unlike civilians during the Falklands crisis? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the same facility offered to service personnel will be given to civilians or their families who lodge claims related to Gulf war-associated illnesses?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, whose close personal friends straddle party boundaries. I shall give him the hon. Gentleman's good wishes. I shall look into the points that he raised concerning others who may have been affected by the as yet undetermined nature of Gulf war illnesses.

    Farnborough Aerodrome
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on progress in the sale of the Farnborough aerodrome. [20197]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The disposal of Farnborough aerodrome to the Geneva-based TAG Finance is progressing well, and an agreement for a lease is expected to be signed at the end of this month.
    TAG is required to complete the acquisition of the aerodrome in 2000, once it has secured the necessary planning consents and the Civil Aviation Authority licence.
    Mr. Howarth: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am delighted that progress is being made on the sale of the
    4
    airfield, which represents an immense opportunity for Farnborough and the local area. It will relieve some of the congestion at Heathrow, with executive jets being able to operate out of Farnborough. May I also thank the Minister and his Department for their support for the Farnborough Air Sciences Trust, which seeks to safeguard the tremendously historic buildings on the Farnborough site? Will he take FAST' s proposals firmly into account when he considers the disposal of the factory site? I should be most grateful if he would give me a timetable for that.
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. We have worked closely with the Society of British Aerospace Companies and Rushmoor district council on the future of the site. A number of aspects will be taken into account in the planning considerations, and we shall work with the council to bring about the result that the hon. Gentleman wants, which is to ensure the overall aspects of the site and to achieve the best possible economic future for the area.

    Courts Martial
    Mr. Blunt: What assessment he has made of the effect of incorporation of the European convention on human rights on the court martial system. [20198]
    Mr. George Robertson: We are satisfied that the recent changes to the court martial system will ensure compliance with the convention.
    Mr. Blunt: Does the Secretary of State deny that the potential for an appeal under the convention was one of the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor in a letter to him for not court-martialling Major Eric Joyce? Does he deny that that letter was copied to the Minister without Portfolio and was passed to the Army prosecuting authority? Does he deny that the Lord Chancellor advised that the timing of any appeal would be during the run-up to the next election, and so would be unfortunate? Does he deny that that blatant political advice by the Lord Chancellor sits uneasily with his letter to me on Friday, in which he denied absolutely any political involvement in the prosecuting process?
    Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—and better than most hon. Members—correspondence between Ministers is confidential, and is quite rightly withheld under the code of access to Government information, which was established by the Conservative Government. I am completely satisfied that the Army's treatment of Major Joyce was fair, reasonable and in proportion to his conduct, and no disciplinary action against him is outstanding. Any decision not to prosecute is taken by the Army prosecuting authority for solely legal, procedural and evidential reasons. That body is completely autonomous, and is analogous to the Crown Prosecution Service. It is independent of the chain of command and of Ministers. I repudiate entirely the implications of what the hon. Gentleman said. To make such allegations or imputations is to question in a most disgraceful manner the integrity and independence of the Army prosecuting authority.
    Mr. Dalyell: When, just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend saw those powerful television images of men

    5
    coming out of the Maze prison—men who had done their premeditated best to assassinate the British Cabinet—did his mind stray to the case of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher? Should they not have been tried by court martial; and does the Ministry of Defence believe that although this is technically the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office, it has some moral responsibility too?
    Mr. Robertson: It is not just technically the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office: it is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. It would be strange indeed if it were a matter for the Ministry of Defence. I have not yet heard it suggested that those individuals should have been tried by military court. Their case will be reviewed in due course. The decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are made in the best interests of the judicial system that applies there.
    Sir George Young: May I associate Opposition Front Benchers with the remarks made earlier about the Minister for the Armed Forces? Our thoughts are with him and his two sons following Cathy's tragic early death.
    To revert to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) a moment ago, the Secretary of State can resolve the matter quite easily. Will he deny that the Lord Chancellor wrote to him in the terms described by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister in the last Government. He therefore knows that correspondence between Ministers is confidential. It is thus quite proper that it should not be mentioned here—the code was determined by the Conservative Government.
    The Army prosecuting authority will take into account all the evidence and all the legal advice that it requires before arriving at its independent decision, based on the legalities. The authority bore in mind not just domestic law but the European convention on human rights, to which we are party, when deciding independently, without political guidance or interference of any kind, what to do in the case of Major Joyce.

    Iraq
    Mr. Savidge: What the United Kingdom's contribution is to policing the no-fly zones in Iraq. [20199]
    Mr. George Robertson: To monitor Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions the UK contributes 12 Tornado aircraft and up to three VC10 tankers to the coalition operations over the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq.
    Mr. Savidge: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he share my hope that, by diplomatic means, we can ensure that Saddam Hussein fully complies with all relevant United Nations resolutions? Does he further agree that the recent crisis over the United Nations Special Commission inspections shows that diplomacy must sometimes be backed up by the credible threat of military force?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The crisis over Iraq's non-compliance with Security
    6
    Council resolutions, especially in relation to weapons of mass destruction, is certainly not over. That is why HMS Invincible, along with RAF aircrew and GR7 jets, is still in the Mediterranean and will be replaced by HMS Illustrious, which leaves Portsmouth next Monday.
    I should like to take this opportunity to thank the crew of HMS Invincible, and the RAF crew embarked on it, for giving up their Christmas in the interests of ensuring that the menace to local and world security that Saddam represents is fairly and properly dealt with.
    Mr. Wilshire: The great majority of people in the House and the country fully support the contribution made by British forces, but can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that that contribution will continue for as long as the threat continues?
    Mr. Robertson: I can give that assurance. Few hon. Members and few people outside the House do not see Saddam Hussein as a menace and a threat to his neighbours and to the wider international community. The purpose of the UNSCOM inspectors in seeking compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is not simply in the interests of Iraq's close neighbours, because a country that has already used these dreadful instruments of war—chemical and biological weapons—and which continues to deceive and to hide its future capabilities cannot be trusted. Until Saddam Hussein has complied with the Security Council resolutions, we shall have to remain on alert while hoping for a diplomatic solution. However, we must have in reserve the option of military force.
    Ann Clwyd: As the no-fly zone has unfortunately not been fully effective in protecting the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, given the recent invasion by both Turkish forces and those of Saddam Hussein, will my right hon. Friend consider, with the UN Security Council, the setting up of a no-drive zone so that the Kurdish population of northern Iraq can be protected against invasion by tanks and against heavy artillery?
    Mr. Robertson: We act within the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions. Nobody regrets more than I do the fact that internal conflict between Kurdish groups in northern Iraq has been the source of problems for ordinary Kurdish people in that part of the world. The use of some bases in northern Iraq for terrorist incursions into Turkey has complicated the way in which, up to now, we have been able to protect the civilian population in those areas. These matters must be discussed and decided on by the United Nations. As and when they are, we shall—as we have already—make sure that United Nations authority is maintained by the assignment of forces such as those that we have deployed in that area for some time.

    European Defence Industry
    Mr. Bob Russell: What steps he is taking to promote the consolidation of the European defence industry. [20200]
    Mr. Spellar: It is for the defence companies themselves to take the lead in determining the future structure of the industry, but we recognise that Governments have a major constructive influence.

    7
    Accordingly, the UK, France and Germany, whose industries form the bulk of the European defence industrial base, issued a statement on 9 December with the clear message that they are now working together to facilitate the process of change.
    A programme of work to resolve practical issues falling mainly within the sphere of Defence Ministers has been agreed and is being taken forward by the national armaments directors of the three nations.
    Mr. Russell: I welcome what the Minister has said, but could we have a bit more enthusiasm during our six months' presidency of the European Union in promoting the British defence industry throughout the EU? I particularly draw attention to companies in Essex which have been hit harder than many others in the defence-related industries, notably, Paxmans in my Colchester constituency and GEC elsewhere in the county.
    Mr. Spellar: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State flew to Germany during the recess to sign the agreement on Eurofighter, nobody could accuse the Government of a lack of enthusiasm for the British defence industry. We are certainly looking forward during our presidency to proposals from the industry by 31 March setting out its precise views about how the European industry can be restructured so that it can become an even more formidable international competitor.
    Mr. Borrow: My constituents, and those of many of my Lancashire colleagues, welcome the Government's decision to complete the signing of the Eurofighter agreement. It is an example of exactly the sort of consolidation of the European defence industry that the question highlights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the example of Eurofighter could be followed by many other parts of the defence industry in the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that the implications for co-ordinating defence and industrial policies are crucial for this country's defence and for the pursuit of a vigorous industry throughout the UK?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Of course, the first decision on Eurofighter was taken in 1982, but it has taken this Government to bring it to completion and to sign the agreement. [Interruption.] The signing of the agreement, the visit to Germany of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at an early stage of this Government's term of office and the Prime Minister's initiative with the German Chancellor all show the impetus and energy that were put behind the decision, which was welcomed by most parts of the industry, if not by some of those on the Conservative Benches who treat it so lightheartedly. Their attitude will be noted by the industry. We are certainly examining the restructuring of industry, particularly on a corporate basis, and therefore the creation of a genuine European defence industrial base.
    Mr. Key: I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that the Germans put off their decision just to wait for the general election result, but he is indeed pushing at the bounds of credibility by telling Britain's defence industries to do it his way or else. Which is in the national
    8
    interest: is it for those industries to pursue the integration that the Government request when there is no formal legal basis throughout the European Union for such collaboration; or is it to maintain and to promote the interests of the British defence industry with those of the world's greatest defence industries in the United States of America?
    Mr. Spellar: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. A consolidated, stronger European defence industry will be better able not only to compete with the new American giants that have restructured, but, in many cases, to collaborate with them. We cannot have a fragmented industry throughout Europe which is at the mercy of the American industrial giants. We are taking the initiative and the hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House for his lack of action, rather than carping.

    Armed Forces Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans to increase recuritment of ethnic minorities into the United Kingdom's armed forces. [20201]
    Mr. Spellar: It is the Government's aim that the armed forces should recruit the best people and should better reflect the ethnic composition of the society that they defend. All three services are placing particular importance on ethnic minorities recruitment. The tri-service initiatives in Newham and Sandwell and the Army's specific campaign are being supported by local single-service initiatives.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure that the House welcomes the Government's aim to have modern forces that better reflect the society that they protect. With that in mind, and with reference to the Newham initiative, what arrangements will my hon. Friend put in place to monitor the success, or otherwise, of those initiatives?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for the co-operation of Newham council and Newham Members of Parliament in the initiative. He is right that initiatives alone are not enough. We should also, not only during recruitment, monitor the development and progress of individuals who join the armed forces, first, to ensure that we are doing things right and, secondly—where we find that certain avenues are not working—so that we can refine our processes. That will be important. We look forward not only to working with the local authorities that are involved but, obviously, to examining the activities of the armed forces themselves to ensure that we monitor progress and developments.
    Mr. Brazier: In welcoming the principle of attracting more people from ethnic minorities into the armed forces, it is perhaps worth remembering that the largest volunteer army was the Indian army, which fought with us against the Japanese. Will the Minister none the less assure the House that, in the initiatives that he has mentioned, there will be no attempt to introduce affirmative action? The recruitment of ethnic minorities must be on the basis of attracting them and of merit; it should not be a case of

    9
    our saying to anyone else in the armed forces, "Someone else is being chosen for the post instead of you because of affirmative action."
    Mr. Spellar: I think the hon. Gentleman would accept that the reverse is true. If only a small percentage of one group comes into our armed forces, it is likely that we are not getting the best people from that group. Therefore, if we can bring in more people, particularly from the ethnic community, who, for several reasons, have not joined before—although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, in many cases, they did so in the past—we will enhance the armed forces and it will be better for the armed forces and for our society.
    Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend accept that one reason why large numbers of black ethnic minority people do not join the armed forces is that they hear recurrent reports of the sad brutality towards and harassment of black members? I have in mind a particular case, which relates to the Marines, that has been reported over the past few days. The brutality and harassment go far beyond mere horseplay and teasing. What steps are the Government taking to stamp out that sort of behaviour towards black people who join the armed forces?
    Mr. Spellar: The Army has introduced a confidential support hotline, outside the chain of command, which people can use to make their complaints if they feel that they are not being addressed. My hon. Friend should accept that all three services are seized of their responsibilities in this matter. They are not just making strong statements—they are taking action to eliminate racial harassment, bullying and discrimination. Unfortunately, the success stories are not publicised, but, as always, the exceptions are.
    The armed forces are determined to stamp out the sort of behaviour to which my hon. Friend referred. There is a real career available in the armed forces for those from the ethnic community—as, indeed, there is for those from the rest of the community. After all, the armed forces recruit about 25,000 people a year for good, fulfilling jobs.

    Service Personnel (Asbestos-related Illnesses)
    Mr. Dismore: If he will make a statement concerning compensation for service personnel suffering from asbestos-related illnesses contracted during their service with the armed forces. [20202]
    Mr. Spellar: We are sympathetic to concerns that former service personnel suffering from asbestos-related illnesses may be disadvantaged by comparison with civilians, and have asked for advice on a comparison between the compensation arrangements for service personnel and civilians. Although this has taken longer than originally anticipated, the advice should be available shortly. The issues are not straightforward and they involve officials in the Department of Social Security as well as in my Department. If service personnel are shown to be disadvantaged, we will consider options for creating fairer arrangements.
    Mr. Dismore: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As I am sure he knows, my hon. Friends the Members for
    10
    Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and I have been campaigning on the issue for some time. Asbestos-related illnesses are severe, wasting and painful, so urgent action is needed. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that, whatever wider review of war pensions may be taking place, early action will be taken to deal with the apparent injustices suffered by the group of people to whom I have referred, who contracted their illnesses while serving their country?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their constructive attitude to and position on the issue. The Minister for the Armed Forces very much regrets that work on the matter has taken rather longer than originally anticipated. As my hon. Friend knows from previous experience, the issues are not straightforward and they involve officials in the DSS as well as in my Department. However, that work is entirely separate from my hon. Friend the Minister's review of compensation arrangements for service personnel more generally. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that its conclusions will not be delayed by that review.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Winnick: How many troops are currently serving as part of Britain's contribution to SFOR in Bosnia. [20203]
    Mr. George Robertson: We currently contribute some 5,200 troops in the former Yugoslavia as part of the stabilisation force. About 3,500 of those are based in Bosnia and the rest, some 1,700, are based in Croatia.
    Mr. Winnick: I again pay tribute to all those forces, including the British contribution, serving in the former Yugoslavia. In view of the acute dangers—and I believe that they are acute—of killings occurring yet again, especially in Bosnia, would it be possible for a decision soon to be reached on extending the time frame beyond June for troops serving in the former Yugoslavia? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us very much welcomed President Clinton's suggestion that such a decision is likely to be made?
    Mr. Robertson: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the forces, especially the British forces, which are serving in the former Yugoslavia. They are doing a job that is now largely out of the headlines but that is heroic and incredibly dedicated. We should all be very proud of what they are doing and what they are achieving.
    My hon. Friend is also right to say that, although there have been big improvements and much progress has been made, there have been signs that, if the effort were to be diminished or the NATO-led force were to leave, there would be a return to some of the worst excesses that we have seen. That is why, at the NATO meetings at the end of last year, NATO Defence and Foreign Ministers put in place the necessary planning, without a commitment for a continuing follow-on force.
    I, too, was extremely glad that President Clinton made it clear that American ground troops will be in Bosnia after June 1998. I believe that, as long as the force there is NATO-led, commanded and controlled, and as long as

    11
    we have the most appropriate force configuration for the situation applying there, we can bring some further lights of hope to the ordinary people of that benighted country.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his Department's responsible planning for the continued presence of British troops in the NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia beyond June will not be vitiated by the outcome of the strategic defence review? Can he make quite certain that the strategic defence review will enable the United Kingdom always to maintain the capacity to keep in the field two operational forces of significant status and size—for example, in Northern Ireland and in Bosnia?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to pre-empt the outcome of the strategic defence review, but I will not be drawn on that matter. However, I see no likelihood of the strategic defence review affecting our commitments to Northern Ireland and to Bosnia. Our commitment to Bosnia-Herzogovina is to pursue the principles that were agreed at Dayton and that were re-emphasised, in 1996, at Lancaster house. We are interested, first, in the welfare of the people of Bosnia-Herzogovina; secondly, in creating a multi-ethnic nation in that part of the world; and, thirdly, in ensuring that any violence in that area is contained within it and does not spread to the surrounding region. That remains a priority of this Government, as it was of the previous Government. I foresee no likelihood of any change to that commitment or to the dedication of our forces in pursuing it.
    Laura Moffatt: Does the Secretary of State agree—I know that he, like members of the Defence Select Committee, has visited Bosnia—that the best indicator of the job done by our forces there is the fact that they do that job with professionalism, enthusiasm and complete good grace? They believe that the job that they are doing is worth while and that it is very important that they stay there.
    Mr. Robertson: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and I warmly welcome the Defence Select Committee's report on Bosnia. The report was produced very quickly, yet it contained some profound comments and recommendations. We are giving full consideration to those conclusions and recommendations, and we shall be providing a response in due course. The report underlined the commitment, dedication and practical application of British troops in Bosnia, and it showed just how much our troops have achieved in the period that we have been there and how critical their role will be in the future.
    Sir George Young: I endorse the comments made by hon. Members from both sides of the House on the work of our troops in Bosnia and the Secretary of State's comment on President Clinton's recent decision. As we approach the end of the financial year, can the Secretary of State say whether the costs of our operations in Bosnia will be borne, as previously, as a charge on the reserves, or whether he will have to find that very substantial sum from his own depleted resources?
    Mr. Robertson: When the costs are finally established, the Ministry of Defence, as has been the practice, will
    12
    determine how much of the costs can be absorbed within its budget. If there is a difference between what can be absorbed and the cost—[interruption.] Is that sudden illumination of the Chamber light at the end of the tunnel for the Government or for the Opposition? As and when we reach that point, clearly discussions will then commence with the Treasury.

    Trident
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If a decision to reduce the number of warheads on a Trident missile would result in cost savings. [20204]
    Mr. George Robertson: The financial implications of any changes we might make in deployed warhead numbers on Trident missiles are being considered in the strategic defence review.
    Dr. Lewis: I am in no way asking the Secretary of State to prejudge the findings of the strategic defence review, but I am asking whether it is physically possible for the number of warheads on a Trident missile to be reduced without massive cost. Is he aware that, the last time an incoming Labour Government cut the warhead potential of the deterrent—that was the Wilson Government in the 1960s—and cut it for similar political reasons, it was necessary to introduce the Chevaline project to multiply the number of warheads, which added 60 per cent. to the cost of the entire system? Can he promise us that the same sort of mistake will not be made again for doctrinal reasons?
    Mr. Robertson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman a fact, known to the previous Government and to this Government, which is that the Trident system allows considerable flexibility in the number of warheads loaded on the missiles, and changes can be made without any additional cost. I also underline the fact that we will deploy on our Trident submarines only the minimum number of warheads required for credible deterrence in current circumstances.
    Mr. Cohen: Is this not so much a matter of cost as a matter of non-proliferation? Did we not say in opposition that there was not a case for any more warheads on Trident than there were on Polaris? Does it not take a leap of imagination to say that, with the cold war over, there should be more warheads on Trident now than there were on Polaris then?
    Mr. Robertson: As my hon. Friend knows only too well, we fought the election on a manifesto which said that we would maintain Trident. However, we also made it clear—I draw this specifically to my hon. Friend's attention in view of what he said—that, within the framework of the Trident missile system, the strategic defence review will look at all aspects of our current deterrence requirements, including nuclear warhead numbers, as we assess the prevailing circumstances.
    Mrs. Ewing: On behalf of the nationalist parties I extend our sincere condolences to the Minister for the Armed Forces on the tragic and sudden loss of his wife.
    In the context of Trident, does the Secretary of State recall a written answer given on 4 December which said that operational costs were estimated at £200 million per

    13
    annum? However, since then, additional nuclear warheads have been purchased. How does he square that with stories suggesting that he has done a deal which would mean that the national minimum wage would not apply to the armed forces? What does he regard as more important—Trident or the personnel who give us such good service?
    Mr. Robertson: On the hon. Lady's first point, the operating costs of the Trident submarine fleet have been estimated at £200 million a year over the 30-year lifetime of the system. That would include the ordering of the Trident missile bodies, which was actioned in the summer of last year.
    The question of the national minimum wage in no way relates to the civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence, who will be fully covered by that legislation. In relation to the armed forces, as the hon. Lady would expect, what concerns us is their operational and military effectiveness. Against that background, we shall make judgments about the national minimum wage. However, I remind the hon. Lady that an independent pay review body was established specifically to examine the circumstances, pay and conditions of members of the armed forces. One of the duties of that pay review body is to take into account the circumstances prevailing in industry outside the armed forces.

    Naval Co-operation (Russia)
    Mrs. Gilroy: If he will make a statement on United Kingdom-Russia naval co-operation. [20205]
    Mr. George Robertson: In November 1997 in Moscow, the Russian Defence Minister, Marshal Sergeyev, and I agreed that our two navies should co-operate closely together to improve inter-operability in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Last month, we were able to follow this up by endorsing proposals on a programme of joint training leading to a short combined deployment in 1999.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I welcome that statement. Are there any implications in it for my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton? My right hon. Friend may recollect that it was a Plymouth frigate, HMS Avenger, which was the first after the end of the cold war to visit Novorossiysk in Russia, with which we have been twinned for a number of years. I am sure that my constituents would welcome a return visit from the Russian navy—a friendly one.
    Mr. Robertson: Before I respond to my hon. Friend's friendly question, I must rectify an omission in that I did not register the sympathy expressed by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I know that he will very much welcome the views of the Scottish National Party and of Plaid Cymru in his moment of tragedy.
    I hope that Plymouth will play a major part in the historic new relationship that we are establishing between the Royal and Russian navies. We have invited the Russian navy to Plymouth to view surface sea training facilities and to discuss associated training methods and techniques. We always welcome foreign warships at flag officer sea training in Plymouth and we would be very pleased if the Russian navy made use of those facilities, as other nations do.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Baker: What plans he has to reduce the stockpile of nuclear waste held at MOD establishments. [20206]
    Mr. Spellar: My Department's plan to reduce its accumulated intermediate-level waste is dependent upon the national strategy for disposal of waste of this type which is being developed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. MOD's low-level waste is disposed of through established routes.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister share my concern about the answers I was given to written questions on 16 December, which show that there are
    11 decommissioned—or in the process of being decommissioned—nuclear submarines, two of them at Rosyth, which contain high-level nuclear waste? There is also more than 2,500 cu m of intermediate nuclear waste at Aldermaston. Is it not irresponsible to create so much nuclear waste in the first place and is it not even more irresponsible to hold such waste close to areas of population? Will the Minister set a deadline for the removal of all intermediate and high-level waste from MOD sites?
    Mr. Spellar: That was a highly complicated and varied question, most of which was factually inaccurate. The Department holds no high-level nuclear waste. The submarines at Rosyth have been decommissioned and are regularly inspected. They do not contain any major levels of nuclear radiation—indeed, we are waiting while the level reduces further. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply, he would have heard me say that, for the problem of intermediate-level nuclear waste, we are waiting for a national strategy following the rejection by the previous Administration of the Nirex—Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive—proposals. Like the rest of the nuclear industry, we shall be covered by that strategy.
    Obviously we are taking, as we always do, the utmost care in dealing with the levels of nuclear waste that we have. Low-level nuclear waste, which is ultimately transported to the national site at Drigg, is material, such as gloves and overalls, which is at a low level of contamination. We take our responsibilities seriously and we are awaiting the responses of other Departments to build the national picture.
    Mr. Cousins: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that when, as required by the Treasury, his Department goes over to resource accounting, full provision will be made in published departmental accounts for the decommissioning costs of all nuclear waste, stockpiles and materials, contaminated land and buildings?
    Mr. Spellar: Similar considerations will apply not only to the Ministry of Defence but to a wide range of civil nuclear facilities. Inevitably, we shall need to look precisely at decommissioning nuclear submarines. As I have said, we have removed the reactor cores from the submarines, and they therefore have relatively low and decreasing levels of radioactivity. We are awaiting a response from the Department of the Environment,

    15
    Transport and the Regions on the disposal of other nuclear waste. Obviously, nuclear waste decontamination and disposal is dependent on a national strategy for the industry, and is not simply a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

    Persian Gulf
    Mr. Robathan: If he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in the Persian Gulf. [20207]
    Mr. George Robertson: British forces are deployed to the Gulf in support of our national interests and to assist in international efforts to ensure that the Iraqi Government comply with the requirements of the United Nations Security Council.
    Mr. Robathan: The House will know that this week is the seventh anniversary of the start of hostilities in the Gulf war. Almost everyone in the House will agree that it is a great pity that Saddam Hussein is still terrorising the civilian population of Iraq, making mischief in the middle east and impeding efforts towards peace there. May I pay tribute to the Government for their steadfast attitude towards Iraq, despite some opposition? Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the Government will maintain their strong position against Saddam Hussein until he accepts the United Nations resolutions, and while it remains in our national interest so to do?
    Mr. Robertson: I can indeed confirm that. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to cross-party support for the firm, steadfast and, I believe, correct stance that the Government have taken in respect of the continuing crisis created by Saddam Hussein and for the regret that he expressed that, seven years after the end of the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein continues to persecute his own people and threaten his neighbours. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the inspectors in the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, including some from the British Ministry of Defence, are working not simply on behalf of the United Nations and the neighbours of Iraq, but for the rest of the world. I offer the House one piece of evidence that highlights that message and underlines the frightening potential of Saddam Hussein. UNSCOM verified that 16 sarin-filled warheads and 14 missile warheads filled with binary chemical weapon components were found and destroyed by international weapons inspectors. There are more and they represent a huge and terrifying threat to the region and the world.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office (Scrutiny Role)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the impact on National Audit Office expenditure of the recent enlargement of its scrutiny role. [20231]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The scrutiny role of the National Audit Office will increase as the Government's policy to
    16
    introduce resource accounting comes into effect and as new agencies and business units are set up, as for example in the Ministry of Defence. Those are the main determinants that require an increase in the National Audit Office's budget of some £2.6 million or 2.8 per cent. in real terms in 1998–99, as approved by the Public Accounts Commission in December 1997. Other important areas of developing scrutiny include changes in the way in which Government Departments deliver their services, for example through the private finance initiative and the office's increasing attention to performance measurement and the quality assurance of the services provided to the citizen.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer and ask him a question of which I have given him notice. The housing association movement has a outturn of around £1 billion this year. Can he confirm that the National Audit Office has no remit to audit individual housing associations? Given that the Harambee housing association collapsed with debts of £500,000 in 1994 and that, in 1996, the Focus and Circle 33 housing associations were investigated for fraud, would it not make sense for the National Audit Office remit to be enlarged so that all housing associations could be audited on a national and consistent basis, and such financial failures might be avoided?
    Mr. Sheldon: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, who has identified a clear gap in the work of the National Audit Office. The £1.8 billion covered by housing association accounts is a substantial sum. The fact that the NAO has no access to those accounts is a glaring omission. The Public Accounts Committee and the commission have recommended that that should be changed.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, under the National Audit Act 1983, the NAO has a responsibility to follow taxpayers' money—public money. My right hon. Friend may, like me, regard national lottery revenue as a form of voluntary taxation. Is there not an argument for extending the role of the National Audit Office—perhaps the 1983 Act should be amended—to allow it to pursue the use of lottery revenue, which is public money, to ensure proper value for money?
    Mr. Sheldon: It is a number of years since 1983. I agree that some of those issues need to be looked at again. I hope that the Government will give urgent attention to the gaps in the ability of the NAO to follow public money. The 1983 Act requires some revision in that respect.

    Social Security Accounts
    Mr. Robathan: What assessment he has made of the impact on the resources of the National Audit Office of the need for recurrent qualification of Department of Social Security accounts. [20232]
    Mr. Sheldon: In 1997, the Comptroller and Auditor General qualified his certificate on three accounts for the Department of Social Security and its agencies. The vote that accounts for major benefits expenditure has been qualified due to the level of error in benefit awards each

    17
    year since the introduction of income support in 1988–89. The national insurance fund account has been qualified every year since 1987–88. The Child Support Agency client funds account has been qualified each year since the creation of the agency in 1993. Apart from the additional costs to the National Audit Office of around £100,000, those qualifications over so long a period represent serious failures in accountability.
    Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a rather sorry tale. May I urge him to ensure that the NAO continues to pursue the matter? A year ago, it was alleged that £1.4 billion had been fraudulently misspent on income support alone. The issue is vital to any review of the accounts and expenditure of the Department of Social Security. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that we must concentrate on that. I hope that he is able to assist.
    Mr. Sheldon: Obviously, the main work will fall to the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that the top civil servants concerned will be brought before the Committee and will be pursued vigorously. It is shameful that the situation has been allowed to go on for so long.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: With his extensive experience, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is worried about the situation. Will he draw to the attention of the Ministers concerned the fact that, even without any question of fraud, the incompetence of the Child Support Agency system is leading to enormous personal upset and to the taxpayer ending up with the worst of the deal, as usual? I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to bring his considerable influence to bear to ensure that that is not allowed to continue.
    Mr. Sheldon: I fully share my hon. Friend's anxieties. She is quite right. The issue is mainly for the Public Accounts Committee, which will, I am sure, pursue it diligently.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. David Heath: What proportion of National Audit Office resources is directed to the auditing of those non-departmental public bodies not statutorily required to be audited by the National Audit Office. [20233]
    Mr. Sheldon: Work on cases in which statutes provide discretion on the appointment of auditors and the relevant Secretary of State appoints the National Audit Office accounted for less than 2 per cent. of the resources spent by the NAO on financial audit in 1996–97 and for 1 per cent. of overall resources. In cases in which the Comptroller and Auditor General is not responsible for the audit, the relevant Secretary of State appoints the auditors and sets the terms of the audit, which makes the bodies more accountable to the Executive than to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee has
    18
    repeatedly urged that the Comptroller and Auditor General should become the appointed auditor of all non-departmental public bodies.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that there is a need to extend the scope of the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission—and the equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland—to ensure that no quango can spend public money, whether from Government, the European Union, or, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, from lotteries, without it being properly audited and the audit being made available to the House?
    Mr. Sheldon: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the shameful aspects is that the European Court of Auditors has access to some areas to which our own Comptroller and Auditor General does not have access. That needs to be looked at urgently.

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

    Bishops
    Mr. Baker: What is the total cost of supporting the bishops within the Church of England. [20234]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner): In 1996, the commissioners spent £13.7 million—10 per cent. of their total expenditure—on supporting episcopal ministry. That included the stipends, staff and administrative costs of the 44 diocesan bishops and 66 suffragan bishops and the housing, including Lambeth palace, of diocesan bishops. The housing of suffragan bishops is funded by dioceses, and full details of that expenditure are not held by the commissioners.
    Mr. Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman contrast the arrangements of the Church of England with the much flatter managerial arrangements of the Church of Scotland? Would it not be better all round if the Church of England were to stop supporting hierarchies and use the money that would be freed to help the poor and house the homeless?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for comparisons with another Church for which I am not responsible. It should be pointed out that the vast bulk of bishops' expenses—84 per cent.—goes on staff salaries. The remaining 16 per cent. comprises office expenses, including equipment, sundries, resettlement costs, hospitality, travel and, for diocesan bishops, heating, lighting—not lightning—cleaning and house and garden items. Almost every piece of legislation passed by the General Synod and approved by Parliament imposes some new responsibility on bishops. They need adequate office back-up if they are to fulfil their very wide range of responsibilities.

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I should let the House know that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 1 May, the Government were elected with a mandate to deliver a Scottish Parliament. We have kept that promise, and have done so in a remarkably tight time scale. The pace—I do not think that anyone would accuse me of exaggeration—has been brisk. The referendums Bill was published after only two weeks; the White Paper appeared in 12 weeks; the referendum was fought and won in 16 weeks; and the legislation was introduced before 1997 had died away—seven months all in. I pay tribute to the commitment of political colleagues and, above all, to the remarkable patience, tenacity and skill of the civil service team and those who drafted the Bill.
  Of course, there has been much doubt, doom and gloom. Indeed, many hon. Members present are privately fearful; others are openly dismissive. I would contend that the sceptics have been confounded. The Bill will be welcomed by democrats everywhere. It is not simply about Scotland. Nor is it in any sense routine reform, tinkering with the detail of our political system. It goes to the heart of our democracy, and offers hope for the democratic process itself. It is part of the most far-reaching programme of constitutional reform that the country has seen for well over a century. In years to come, people will look back on it as a decisive step in the fight to modernise our constitution. The intention, the objective, is a new covenant with the people.
  The prescription is not one for Scotland's needs alone. The programme includes the Welsh Assembly, London government, a new voting system for European elections, the commission on voting reform, regional development agencies in England, reform of the House of Lords, and measures to buttress individual liberties, such as incorporation of the European convention on human rights and freedom of information. It is a formidable programme—one of which this country can be proud.
  Madam Speaker, British public life has been scarred by cynicism.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I cannot let the democratic argument pass. After the Bill is enacted, we within the United Kingdom will not be equal citizens in respect of the functions of this Parliament—the Parliament of this island. In breaking the first democratic principle, how can the Secretary of State say that the Bill advances the cause of democracy?
  Mr. Dewar: I recognise the genuineness with which the hon. Gentleman holds that view, and I suspect that this will not be the last time we disagree on this matter.
  20
  However, I have some confidence in this House, even if he does not. I take the view that if, in its wisdom, the House of Commons decides to trust people in Scotland to take decisions about Scotland's domestic affairs, and to take charge of a package of legislation that is distinctly Scottish and separate from the other business of this House, it is entitled to do so. Exercising its democratic prerogative in this way is not in any sense offensive to democracy.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: If that is true, would it not be desirable also for this House to decide that English business should not be addressed, spoken to or voted on by hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies?
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to that view. If he were to advocate a federal system, he would have some allies; perhaps not ones he likes or expects, but, in pursuit of what he sees as truth, he cannot be particular about the company he keeps. In any event, it is a matter for this House. If he wishes to come to what will be, no doubt, the extensive debates later and argue that case, we will listen to him with respect, as we always do—however eccentric or wrong we may think his ideas to be.
  Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman did not address my point—that, in the purpose of our votes across this Union, we will not have equal status. That is the essential principle behind the argument. We will not be equal citizens within the Union. By referring to the disposition of parliamentary power, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer that point.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He above all argues for the sovereignty of Parliament. If Parliament uses its power and sovereignty to dispose of business in the way in which we are suggesting—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is denying the simple fact that this House makes these arrangements. He may not like the outcome; I understand that, of course. I have not liked the outcome of the business of this House for many years. I have tholed my assize bravely and waited my chance, and I hope that he will not deny me a little pleasure that it has at last come.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: In light of the comments of the Secretary of State, why is the Prime Minister not introducing this Bill, which is of constitutional importance? It must be the first time that a Prime Minister has not introduced such legislation.
  Mr. Dewar: Perhaps there is one distinction between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman—the Prime Minister trusts Scots to do this. It would seem odd in a devolution measure if that were not so.
  To be fair, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman does his homework. I think he will find that the previous incumbent at No. 10 did not introduce all constitutional measures during his time. I am absolutely sure that he did not, although I have not checked what is a rather obscure point. Madam Speaker, I know that you would disapprove totally of bets exchanged across the House, but perhaps I can make a two-to-one bet—a very nice afternoon tea for

  21
  me if I win or for the hon. Gentleman if he wins, with the loser paying for you, Madam Speaker, as well. I do not know whether that is proper within the rules of the House.
  Mr. Grieve: The one thing I do accept is that it is more pleasant to hear the Secretary of State introducing the Bill than the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Dewar: Maintaining the simile of afternoon tea, it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake and eat it. On this occasion, that is not a laudable activity.
  To return to my theme, British public life has been scarred by cynicism, sometimes amounting to contempt in public places for parliamentary democracy. My genuine hope for the new Scottish Parliament is that it can earn the trust of Scotland's peoples, and it is the people who have played the key role in making change possible.
  The referendum was much criticised, and the subject of much hostility and doubt, even in my party, but it gave the country its chance to speak, and it was an example of trusting the people, of an exercise in direct democracy and of an occasion on which politicians practised what they preached. The people gave us a handsome majority, not in a blaze of razzmatazz but with a quiet determination that left no room for doubt that this is the settled will of the people.
  The nationalists—I understand this—spent years claiming that Labour could not win, and that anything we did deliver would be a watered-down scheme, motivated by partisan advantage—no more than a betrayal. I like to think that they may have rethought that position. The Tories claimed that devolution would lead inexorably to the break-up of Britain, and argued that the British constitution was so perfect in every respect that it was incapable of improvement.
  However, the world has moved on, and, at least in Scotland, the Tories know it. It will be fascinating to see the contest develop between the diehards and the last ditchers on the Opposition Benches and those back home who think that they know on which side the party's bread is buttered.
  There can be no doubt about the change back in Scotland. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, writing, perhaps typically, in the Daily Mail on 2 December last year, after referring delicately to
  "our election wipe out in May",
  went on:
  "it is good that Scottish Tories accept the new Scottish Parliament and will work for its success. The Union continues but it will be a new United Kingdom with many of the characteristics of a federal system. We must become its champions."
  Some may say simply that Sir Malcolm was reverting to type—recognising many previous convictions on the issue in his earlier years—but those who do so might try this for size:
  "we are genuinely enthusiastic about engaging in the process of this major change to our constitution and our candidates will fight the forthcoming election in order to win and participate."
  Those words must have been as fire in the mouth of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), but, for all that, I still welcome his views. At this rate, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I do not know whether he is here, but I will be disappointed if
  22
  he has fled the field on this occasion—will be left lonely and alone, the last darling of the blue-rinse brigade, still sheltering in the inner recesses of Newton Mearns and Morningside.
  The Bill is a catalyst for change. We want literally to create a new politics in Scotland, bringing back popular legitimacy, while creating the basis to reinvigorate Scottish life. My party has had the courage to lead that change—not to play for narrow party interest, but to work in the national interest, even at the price of short-term electoral interest.
  We can all remember the locust years, when energy and talent were frustrated, and precious resources needlessly squandered. We all remember that embittered disaster of the poll tax and the investment in the private Health Care International hospital in Clydebank rather than in the national health service. We all remember that, while parents wanted investment in their children's education, energy and resources were devoted to encouraging schools to opt out, and almost none of them did.
  This Bill is the means of ensuring that such madness—it was madness, with each and every one of those measures standing as an affront to the democratic wishes of the communities that the Administration responsible purported to represent—can certainly never happen again. We have won a popular mandate in the referendum, and we are now creating an institution that can speak for the people of Scotland, is closer to their needs and concerns, and is ultimately accountable to them.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this madness, as he calls it, was almost a direct consequence of the fact that English Members were voting on Scottish matters? Is there not a severe danger that, if he allows Scottish Members to vote on English matters, a similar madness will ensue?
  Mr. Dewar: I am afraid that the historical record is rather against that. The essential cause of the bitterness and frustration to which I refer is the fact that we put the control of the legislative programme in the hands of a group of politicians who did not command significant support in Scotland; that was one of the problems, and it is at the heart of the devolution argument.
  The arrival of the Bill on the Floor of the House is a milestone. It is easy to undervalue, because of the extensive debate and publicity over many months, and there is an almost routine atmosphere about its appearance, but that was not always so. It is difficult to overestimate the sweep of legislative power that will be transferred. No longer will apologetic Scottish provisions be unhappily tacked on to basically English legislation; no longer will there be the agonised debate about which of the pressing options should have a place in the Westminster legislative queue.
  I look forward to a Parliament that will consider radical reforming legislation with the opportunity, time and energy to abolish the feudal system; tackle the lack of integration in our urban transport system; revive local democracy; and deal with the problems of health,

  23
  education and housing. Those are the issues that matter to the people of Scotland, and those will be the daily responsibility of the new Scottish Parliament.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the reform of the feudal system, will the Secretary of State advise us about who will be the immediate lawful superior of the site and the building of the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Dewar: The Scottish Office will certainly be the owner of the site. If the hon. Lady is asking a very technical question about feudal superiority, she will not be surprised to hear that I have not yet personally inspected the title deeds. I can promise her that, if she is interested, I will pass them to her; I have no doubt that she will have an absolutely smashing afternoon—or week, or fortnight—trying to decipher them. She has given me a perfect link to my next paragraph, which is extremely good of her.
  Much else, of course, is happening: last week, I was able to announce that the Parliament building would be on a cleared new-build site in the historic heart of Edinburgh, next to the palace of Holyroodhouse, and with the superb backdrop of the Royal park, Salisbury crags and Arthur's seat. It will be an architectural opportunity of the first order: a chance to prove that this generation can literally build for the future with imagination and flair.
  There will be much discussion, and no doubt perfectly legitimate dispute, about financial arrangements and the Parliament's European role and relations with Westminster. Those are, indeed, important issues, but the main case, the drive and thrust, is the democratic case for change and for trusting the people to take decisions that affect their lives: the attempt to reconnect the individual citizen to the political process.
  Today is about acknowledging the fundamental nature of the reform that this country is about to embark on; it is not about the detail, which the House will debate over the coming weeks. It is my duty to highlight some of the key principles.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Before he moves on, will the Secretary of State give the House his latest estimate of the cost of the new building?
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read the reports of the press conference, where I outlined several factors, including the size of the building, that have led us to revise our estimate. For good commercial and practical reasons, I cannot go beyond what I said then: we think that the cost will be in the region of £50 million. As further firm information emerges, we will try to keep the House in touch with developments, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise we have done all along.
  The Bill delivers the commitments that we gave in the White Paper. Indeed, the vision that stirred so much interest and excitement last July is here in the fine print of the clauses and schedules. The message is that we remain committed to establishing a substantial and powerful Parliament in Scotland.
  I now give way with pleasure to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is part of my past.
  Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State says that the Bill implements the White Paper. He will recall
  24
  that the White Paper specifically stated that the Secretary of State's role would not be that of a governor general, but that, if legislation was submitted by the Scottish Parliament, it would automatically be endorsed; but clause 33 makes it clear that that position has been reversed, and that the Secretary of State would have power by order to prohibit the Presiding Officer from submitting a Bill for Royal Assent. Is that not wholly undemocratic, and completely at variance with what he has just said?
  Mr. Dewar: I think that the hon. Gentleman—I say this with some sympathy—has misunderstood the situation. It is perfectly true that there is permission to proceed in clause 33. In fact, the clause goes beyond what was suggested in the White Paper.
  The White Paper originally set out that, in the areas of devolved power, the Scottish Parliament could operate on its own behalf but could not impact—perhaps "trespass" is a better word—on reserved areas. That seemed to us to be too restrictive. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn the House's attention to the fact that there is machinery that allows legislation to go ahead even if it trespasses on a reserved power, but in those circumstances, obviously, there has to be agreement. It is an important extension of power that gives flexibility and sensible provision. No doubt it will be used properly in the time ahead.
  Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the Secretary of State. I may have appeared churlish earlier, but I was a little tongue-tied and surprised that his invitation to me to intervene had been accorded. I now take up his invitation with pleasure.
  There is a most surprising provision in clause 54, by which the Secretary of State may compel the Scottish Executive to introduce a Bill into the Scottish Parliament if he so orders. Would he care to explain how that is supposed to work? What will happen if Parliament decides that it is not prepared to accede to and pass that measure?
  Mr. Dewar: In that case, the Secretary of State referred to will be the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. There is always a balance in the interests of good government. Subsection (1) of section 54—I should say clause 54(1), as it is not yet on the statute book, so I must not get ahead of myself—says:
  "If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that any action proposed to be taken by a member of the Scottish Executive would be incompatible with any international obligations, he may by order direct that the proposed action shall not be taken."
  Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would rather have a situation in which a member of the Scottish Executive could act in a way that was clearly incompatible with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, and that there should be no provision to cover that very unlikely event? Unlikely events have to be covered, just in case they become reality. I thought that he would have greeted the clause with some interest, perhaps, but also approval.
  I repeat that these are safety devices to deal with situations which I hope will be rare. They may never occur, but they have to be anticipated.
  The hon. Member for Stone raised the matter of an extension of power for the Scottish Parliament that is important and sensible.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State will not get any quarrel from me on his

  25
  £50 million price tag for a Scottish Parliament. Relative to the £150 million or £200 million for office blocks across the road, sanctioned by the previous Administration, it seems like good value.
  On a substantive matter, there has been worrying speculation in the press over the past two days that forestry, which is a devolved function, may be at risk of privatisation or sell-off. Five million of the 8 million hectares of forestry land lie in Scotland. Can the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that that land will not be substantially sold off or privatised before the Scottish Parliament comes into being, and to protect that land for the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman just about got into order at the end. I read with interest the front-page story in The Observer yesterday, which included, for example, the information—which came as a complete surprise to me—that we had decided to sell standing timber to meet the very substantial—admittedly—gap in the financial affairs of the Forestry Commission that were bequeathed to us by the previous Administration. There was a gap of £10 million last year. There will be a gap of £25 million next year, and £40 million for the year after that.
  We have not been selling land other than that which was contracted and legally obliged—in other words, in process. I do not anticipate having to do that, certainly not in the next year. Obviously, we have to look carefully at this and find ways to deal with a very genuine difficulty. I say that in a spirit of frankness. I would not pretend that there is not a problem. It is an inherited problem, but it is one that we hope to meet.
  Let me describe the structure of the Bill. Part I, clauses 1 to 40, provides for the establishment of the Parliament and for elections to it. It also defines its wide-ranging legislative powers. Part II, clauses 41 to 60, establishes the Scottish Administration, which will effectively be the Government in Scotland in respect of devolved matters. Part III, clauses 61 to 68, provides for the financial arrangements for the Parliament and the Executive, and for the accounting and auditing of the funds made available to them. Part IV, clauses 69 to 75, gives the Scottish Parliament the power to vary the basic rate of income tax for Scottish taxpayers by up to 3p. Part V, clauses 76 to 99, and part VI, clauses 100 to 116, deal with miscellaneous, general and supplementary matters, which will be looked at in detail in Committee.
  As my Scottish colleagues well know, clause 1 provides that there shall be a Scottish Parliament. It goes on to provide for how Members of that Parliament will be elected. It is a succinct, straightforward statement of intent.
  The White Paper said that the electoral system will enable us to build a Parliament based on fairness, which is what we have achieved in clauses 1 to 17. The principal features of the system are: there will be a fixed four-year parliamentary term with provision for elections within that period in exceptional circumstances; and electors will be asked to vote twice in the elections to the Scottish Parliament—once for a constituency member and once for regional members drawn from lists submitted by registered political parties or individuals standing in their own right.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State deserves credit for introducing the Bill in such a short time. It is not perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect Bill.
  26
  Notwithstanding the fact that the electoral process was part of an admittedly agreed system under the constitutional convention, what is the Secretary of State's view about the possibility of opening the regional lists to get rid of their party political aspect? Would he consider allowing a free vote—at least within the ranks of the payroll vote, if not for the whole House—on an amendment to open those lists and get rid of the party political aspect, so as to enable voters to select candidates themselves?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman always puts his points so reasonably that I am temporarily beguiled. I cannot give him the undertaking that he wants, although I am prepared to discuss with him the practicalities of that issue, and to explain why it would not be a practical solution.
  That is partly because of the number of candidates likely to be involved and the complexities of working such a system, and partly because, unlike the European elections, in this vote a preference could be expressed for a candidate for the constituency seat in which the individual elector lives. That makes it a different situation, and leads me to believe that our proposal, which the hon. Gentleman fairly agrees was discussed extensively in Scotland, is sensible.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I agree in principle with proportional representation for elections to the Scottish Parliament, but why are the proposed regions based on the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1996? The European parliamentary constituencies proposed under that order will never have effect for their primary purpose—elections to the European Parliament—because of legislation currently before the House on the new form of elections to the European Parliament.
  If the Secretary of State is intent on using European constituencies as the basis for the regional structure, would it not be better to base it on existing rather than amended European constituencies? In my area, people at least have an established affinity with their existing European constituencies, whereas they do not have the same established affinity with the proposed ones.
  Mr. Dewar: We can discuss this matter. There was an agreement after detailed discussion at the Scottish Constitutional Convention at which the Labour party was a full partner, and the current European seats seem still to be as convenient a grouping as we have. If my hon. Friend argues that there should be one Scottish constituency, the list of candidates would be enormous; but if he suggests that it would be better to move away from the present familiar groupings within the European constituencies, that would be a matter for the boundary commissioner when the matter is reviewed. We can return to this matter in Committee, but my proposal is sensible.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that there will be no interference from London in the selection of candidates to appear on the Labour party's list for the regions?
  Mr. Dewar: Oh, dear me! Given its source, I am not terribly impressed by that question. We shall produce very Scottish candidates. In the past, the Conservative party

  27
  has had an enormously interesting travelling army, sometimes with famous names, but it has been unable to attract many votes. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about selection systems and strength of candidates, he would be well advised to take lessons from us.
  Regional Members will be returned on a corrective basis, which will reflect the proportion of votes cast for the party or individual, while taking account of seats already gained in the constituency ballot. I apologise if that explanation did not run smoothly because I took too many interventions on points of information. I should perhaps learn a lesson from that in the next few minutes. Those arrangements will ensure a strong constituency link, and a closer correlation between votes cast and seats won.
  This uncomplicated statement reflects my party's major principled stand, and points to very significant changes in political practice in Scotland. In a four-party system, it is not easy to achieve a simple majority. The Labour party has long been the beneficiary of the weighted results that come with the first-past-the-post system. The decision to move to a more proportional system is an unusual example of principle triumphing over narrow political interests. Our vote was for a Parliament in which every significant strand of Scottish opinion will be fairly represented. That will be achieved: no longer will it be possible for 20 per cent. of the votes to bring no reasonable return of seats.
  There will also be a weighting in favour of rural areas, given the population distribution and the regional list system. That commitment is reinforced by the proposal to have separate constituencies for Orkney and for Shetland.
  Even a politician with half a wit can see the implications. The arrangements will herald a new flexibility, new thinking and perhaps new forms of co-operation. We have introduced this far-reaching reform because we firmly believe that it is right, and that we can make better democratic progress on that basis.
  I should like to highlight the provision that will allow independent candidates to stand as regional Members. That is another advance on the proposals in the White Paper, so it is important that I draw it to the House's attention. It reflects our commitment to open the doors of the Parliament as wide as possible, and to encourage new talent, possibly from outwith the political establishment. All that could add up to a rough ride for the established political parties. If it does, so be it.
  Much has been made of our determination to develop a new type of Parliament fit for the purpose, equipped for the future, modern, efficient and accessible. The key decisions about how the Parliament will work will be taken by the Parliament itself. If we were to lay down in tablets of stone how a Parliament with such wide-ranging legislative powers should organise its own affairs, we would be contradicting the principle of devolution at the heart of the Bill.
  We shall put in place a framework that the Parliament can develop and build upon. The Bill will ensure, for example, that Members of the Scottish Parliament have rights of parliamentary privilege in relation to the law of defamation similar to those of Westminster Members, and that they declare any relevant interest before taking part in parliamentary proceedings. We shall legislate to give
  28
  the Parliament substantial powers to order documents to be produced, and to summon witnesses to give evidence on matters within its remit.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry. I must make progress, or hon. Members will rightly complain about the length of my speech. I know that it is a two-day debate, but nevertheless I cannot give way.
  We have established a cross-party working group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, to draw up proposals on how the Parliament could operate. Our aim is to achieve consensus on best practice by drawing on experience both in this House and in other parliamentary bodies. The results of the group's deliberations will be presented to the new Parliament once it is elected. I stress again that it will be for the Parliament ultimately to decide how to conduct its business, but those proposals should provide a useful starting point.
  We promised that the Parliament would have wide-ranging legislative powers, and that we have delivered. Clause 27 of the Bill gives the Scottish Parliament the power to make laws for Scotland. Clauses 28 and 29 and schedule 5 together define those powers in detail by stating what is outside the Parliament's powers. This approach will help to achieve clarity and stability, and by allowing for amendment of the list of reserved matters, it will provide flexibility for the longer term. The procedure for amendment depends on the consent of both Edinburgh and London.
  The Bill also provides for all powers under existing Westminster legislation to be transferred to the Scottish Executive where they concern subjects that are not reserved; and for certain specified powers in reserved areas to be devolved to Ministers of the Scottish Executive by order under clause 59, a draft of which will be made available in time for the relevant part of the Committee stage.
  Beyond the devolved matters, the Scottish Parliament will be specifically entitled to make laws that trespass on reserved matters, in order to maintain a consistent and coherent body of Scots law. That will allow the Parliament to maintain and develop the distinctive traditions of Scots private and criminal law, while protecting the legitimate interests of the United Kingdom Government.
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: With reference to clause 32, am I right in thinking that the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will be the final arbiters when questions of the legislative competence of a Bill arise?
  Mr. Dewar: Yes, my hon. Friend is right about that, and I shall say a brief word about it shortly.
  Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that proper measures are being taken to ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom Government. What about the United Kingdom Parliament? At no point in his speech has he referred to the so-called West Lothian question. When

  29
  Members of this Parliament at Westminster have important functions that coincide with functions that would be transferred to the Scottish Parliament, surely they should be allowed to speak but not to vote. Amending our Standing Orders would seem to be the best way of doing that.
  Mr. Dewar: No one has argued that proposition to me, and in any case it is not one that I would favour. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will find other occasions to put his point of view across—but he must not see the Scotland Bill as a substitute for European legislation. I for one do not want to fall victim to his relentless energy during the passage of the Bill. He is certainly entitled to put any point of view that he believes in: I know that he will before we are done.
  A central theme of the White Paper was that, while the devolved Parliament and Executive will have considerable autonomy, Scotland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. I hope that that is of some satisfaction to the hon. Member for Stone. Relations between Edinburgh and London will be based on consultation, consent and co-operation at official and ministerial level, buttressed when necessary by non-statutory agreements between Departments. No provision is required or made in the Scotland Bill, because relations will evolve and build on the present good working relationship between Whitehall and the Scottish Office.
  Our aim is always to minimise friction, via a settlement which achieves that. The Bill includes a fair and open system for resolving disputes over vires. The Law Officers either of the UK Government or of the Scottish Executive will be able to refer a Scottish Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if they have doubts about its competence. The Judicial Committee, for these purposes, will be composed of people who are or have been Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or who otherwise hold or have held high judicial office. That is an important advance on the proposal in the White Paper to restrict membership to the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. It will mean a bigger pool of available candidates, north and south of the border.
  The second part of the Bill deals with the Scottish Administration. That will in effect be the Scottish Government in relation to devolved matters. The Scottish Executive will, as we promised, be headed by a First Minister appointed by the Queen. It will consist also of Scottish Ministers, and the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I want to make progress. I have been talking for almost 35 minutes, and I must hurry on.
  The Executive will be fully accountable to the Parliament. Ministers must be approved by the Parliament. No Executive will be able to survive a vote of no confidence.
  The Bill provides that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General must be members of the Scottish Executive. There will be a Scottish Law Officer in the UK Government—the new post of Advocate General for Scotland. The Bill will protect the independence of the Lord Advocate in relation to the prosecution of crimes
  30
  and investigation of deaths, and it gives him the right to decline to answer questions in Parliament about individual criminal cases.
  We are looking for a new balanced partnership between the executive and legislative branches of the state in Scotland. This will promote consensus and good government. There will need to be more give and take; more listening; more co-operation. Those will bring real benefits to the people of Scotland.
  The other central feature of the constitution is the judiciary. It is right that responsibility for the judicial and court system should be devolved, and the Bill so provides. That was not the case in the Scotland Act 1978, but the judiciary is at the centre of the legal system, and the legal system is at the heart of the Scottish difference that justifies devolution.
  Safeguards to protect the position of the judiciary have been built in. For example, dismissal of a judge will be possible on the recommendation of the First Minister if two thirds of the Members of the Parliament vote in favour of it. That is an important safeguard to ensure that no judge can simply go on—[Laughter]—can simply go on the say-so of a simple majority vote. I rather liked that. It was a rather pleasing mangling of the English language. I must practise.
  The Government promised in the White Paper that the Parliament would be established on a sound financial basis, and clauses 61 to 68 fulfil that commitment. They set out the financial arrangements for the Parliament and the Executive, including the accounting for funds that are made available to them.
  The Government published last month a paper setting out the principles that will govern determination of the block budgets for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The Barnett formula will continue to operate under devolution, subject to minor adjustments to take account of population changes. Following the precedent set over many years in the case of the Scottish Office budget, the formula will remain an administrative arrangement.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Essex for his recent assurance in The Scotsman that
  "the Tories stand by the existing public expenditure settlement for Scotland because it reflects the country's need."
  That is an important and significant statement. The Bill will transfer to the Scottish Parliament the fundamental power to determine its own expenditure priorities, and to answer to the Scottish people who will be affected by them. That is the essence of democracy.
  Part IV deals with the tax-varying power. Subject to the outcome of the referendum, the Government promised to give the Scottish Parliament a limited power to vary the basic rate of UK income tax in Scotland by up to 3p.
  The decisive vote on the second question in the referendum surprised many people—including some of the most enthusiastic supporters of devolution. Faint hearts there were in plenty, and I understand why, in a political world that is too often dominated by the gloomy theories laid out in the culture of contentment, that should be so. Scots challenged that orthodoxy. Scotland wanted the power to vary revenue—the discipline and the responsibility. The Bill reflects that will.
  The clauses and the power itself have been the subject of considerable debate. The power could add or subtract in any one year more than £400 million at today's prices

  31
  to or from a block of £14 billion. In my view—and, plainly, in the view of the people of Scotland—it represents an important fiscal flexibility that is appropriate for a grown-up Parliament with grown-up powers.
  I recognise that some are disappointed, and that they see the proposal as timid and cautious. I noticed that, in The Sunday Times a few days ago, Mr. Brian Monteith, that leading statesman of the "Think Twice" anti-devolution campaign, was reported as stating:
  "there is considerable growth of support for this Parliament to have greater taxation powers and fiscal independence. We need to scrap any idea of a 3p variation in income tax and allow Scottish Chancellors to set their own budgets."
  To be fair, Mr. Monteith and his ilk do not necessarily represent the Conservative party.
  I turn now to European affairs. As the White Paper made clear, relations with the European Union are necessarily reserved to the United Kingdom Government, because the United Kingdom is the member state. However, the Bill gives the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive the full powers they need to honour and implement European Community obligations as they relate to the devolved areas.
  The Parliament will be able to scrutinise relevant European Union proposals, and legislate to give effect to Community obligations in Scotland. Crucially, schedule 5, which sets out the reserved powers, provides an exception that paves the way for the Scottish Executive to play a full part in negotiations alongside the United Kingdom Government.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: May I finish just the European section? Then I will, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Much has been made of the omission from the Bill of a specific right in law for the Scottish Executive to be involved alongside the UK Government in negotiations, but this Government remain fully committed to the undertaking that we gave in the White Paper. Ministers of the Scottish Executive will be as directly and fully involved as possible in Government decision making on EU matters, and will have a role to play in relevant Council meetings and other negotiation with EU partners.
  Indeed, it may be of interest that the Minister with responsibility for local government and housing in my team is absent from the Bench today because he is in Stockholm discussing European spatial development on behalf of the UK with his Swedish counterpart, in preparation for the important discussions at the informal ministerial meeting in Glasgow later this year. The UK is the member state. We must have a common UK position and a single UK delegation. We are not proposing independence.
  Mr. Ancram: This is an area of concern. The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that his colleague is today acting as a United Kingdom Minister. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is because he is a United Kingdom Minister and is able so to act, representing the United Kingdom within the Councils of Europe in whatever respect, and that, once there is a Scottish
  32
  Parliament and a Scottish Executive, a Minister from that Scottish Executive will be able to participate under schedule 5 only at the invitation and the whim of the Westminster Government, and not as a right?
  Mr. Dewar: That is a decision for the United Kingdom delegation. The right hon. Gentleman will know, because he was in the Scottish Office at one point in his career, that that is always a matter for agreement. I would be sorry if he were to suggest that the decision of the United Kingdom Parliament to devolve power to a Scottish Parliament would somehow throw Scotland into utter darkness in relation to the EU. That is not the intention, and it is not going to happen.
  Mr. Heald rose—
  Mr. Salmond: Legislation would not have to be very good to improve on the position in the past five years, because, from 1992, Scottish Ministers were represented at less than 10 per cent. of European Council meetings, but it was not just the supporters of independence who argued for this right to be put in statute. Does the Secretary of State remember that, a year ago, at the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, the then shadow Foreign Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, argued for the power and right of observer status, implying that that would be written into the Bill?
  Mr. Dewar: As the present arrangement has been negotiated with the Foreign Office—discussed and agreed with the Foreign Office is perhaps a better way of putting it—under present management, the hon. Gentleman's fears are misplaced. It is the end product that is important. It is making the system work that is important. The concordat and the arrangements that we have put in place are adequate—I am very confident about that.
  Of course it is right that the precise arrangements for involving Scottish Ministers will need to be flexible and capable of evolving over time. I agree that flexibility is essential, and it must be in the context of these arrangements, which provide for sensible co-operation between the UK and Scottish Administrations.
  Major advantages for Scotland will come with the new arrangements. Devolution will give a constitutional basis, which in turn will give Scotland a higher profile and the ability to relate as an equal with the German lander, the Spanish provinces and the other forms of devolved government that are the mark of so many successful European states. It is at that level that much business is done in Brussels—alliances struck, tactics evolved, pressure applied. It is a new dimension that will be reinforced by a Scottish representative office in Brussels, briefing Edinburgh and supporting Scotland's efforts in Europe.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Heald rose—
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has been trying to intervene for a long time, so I give way to him.
  Mr. Heald: Will a Scottish Executive Minister ever be able to represent and to speak for the United Kingdom in European Council meetings?
  Mr. Dewar: Who leads and who contributes has always been a matter for the delegation. To a large extent,

  33
  it depends on the subject. As the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) knows, Scottish Office Ministers have had a particular interest in certain areas, and I would expect that they would take an active role in those areas.
  Sometimes, the interest in the devolved areas may be less direct, and that might lead to a variation in practice, but if the hon. Gentleman imagines that there is some sort of barrier or prevention clause, the answer is no, not at all. If he considers the totality of the deal, and the new areas into which Scotland can now break and in which it can operate, I think that he will realise that there are substantial advantages in the machinery that is being set up.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman—I come to the point, because I can almost read his mind—is going to suggest that the German lander have a statutory right to representation in the German delegation, and that the Scottish Executive should have such a right, too. I suppose that that is an argument, but I might advance other examples, such as Catalonia or the Basque territory, which do not have such a statutory right, and he would not subscribe to the view that Catalonia, for example, had been ineffective in making its presence felt in Europe.
  Again, this is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman and I will no doubt cross swords on many occasions at later stages in the Bill, but I hope that that will at least keep him in his seat, even if only momentarily. If it does not, Madam Speaker, I will have to invoke your authority, as I want to hurry on and finish my speech.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: Oh well, I give way.
  Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman read half my mind, which is obviously a large concept in itself. I have now found the reference to the Foreign Secretary when he was shadow Foreign Secretary. When the example of the German lander was raised in the Scottish Grand Committee a year ago, he made exactly the point that I mentioned. At what stage over the past year did the Secretary of State's view that there was not a statutory right of representation or observer status prevail, thereby overturning the Foreign Secretary's statement to the Scottish Grand Committee?
  Mr. Dewar: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are as one. The system that we have put in place commands support not only in the Government, but in many other quarters. It is sensible, but flexible. It recognises Scotland's position within the United Kingdom and its duty to be part of the delegation, to progress the UK point of view and to influence the formulation of policy. It gives it new areas of operation in Europe that will be enormously important.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to carp and say that that is not a satisfactory situation, he is entitled to do so—he is practised at it. He and I have done that together over many years, and I fear that, if our personal plans come to fruition, we may go on doing so for a very long time.
  The Scotland Bill is a substantial as well as a far-reaching piece of legislation, running to 116 clauses and eight schedules. It must be scrutinised properly over the coming months in this House and in another place.
  34
  In recognition of the complexity of the Bill and its interaction with so many other enactments, I am making additional information available to hon. Members. Copies of the guide to the Bill and a list of all the enactments referred to in the Bill are already available in the Library. I shall also place there shortly a compilation of extracts from enactments which the Scotland Bill would amend. Before the beginning of the Committee stage, I shall publish comprehensive notes on clauses, which I hope will be of some help to those who try to follow the debates.
  I commend the Bill to the House. It represents
  "an irreversible watershed with the past."
  Some may think that claim a little over-bold, so it is obviously a quotation that is intended to embarrass the Opposition. Indeed, it comes from Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who, given his extensive travelling, must surely know an irreversible watershed when he sees it.
  The Bill is bold, innovative legislation. It is a radical constitutional measure, designed to bring the processes of government closer to the people. Our aim is a more pluralist, outward-looking democracy that is in tune with the modern world. We want to build a system of government that people can access easily, feel part of, and take part in.
  In the referendum campaign, political parties came together to co-operate in a common cause, and I pay tribute to that spirit. To do so is not to ignore the fundamental differences that exist and the tough talking that lies ahead. However, there is a willingness to accept the decision of the people, and a determination to make the Parliament that is to come a constructive force earning the respect of the country.
  I detect—but I say it in no sniping tone—that that is increasingly the mood of the Conservative party, illustrated in recent moves in Scotland and in the measure of agreement reached over future progress on the Bill. I welcome that. It must be right that all of us work within the democratic framework, according to conscience and in the interests of the people.
  The Scottish Parliament will have the power to make the law of the land on a wide sweep of matters central to quality of life, such as education, health and housing. It will be the guardian of traditions built by Scots over the centuries. It deserves to be taken seriously. Endorsed by the people, it is a trust passed by the people to its elected Members—a trust that must not be betrayed.
  In 1999, a Scottish Parliament will sit in Edinburgh for the first time in almost 300 years. It is not the reincarnation of the nation state which, in 1707, entered a partnership which became the United Kingdom; it is unashamedly a settlement within the United Kingdom—unashamedly, because the majority of Scots are determined to maintain the bonds of friendship, trust and common interest built over time. It has been and always will be the views of the people of Scotland that will alone decide their future.
  However, this is a radical change, providing democratic opportunity and a stronger voice for Scotland in the UK. By establishing that our constitution can adapt to meet the needs of the time, it strengthens the Union and enriches the country as a whole. It will be a Parliament fashioned in Scotland, for Scotland, and with the ability to build a better Scotland.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while accepting and respecting the clear decision of the Scottish people in favour of a devolved Scottish Parliament with limited income tax-varying powers, nevertheless believes that the Scotland Bill is not an acceptable measure because it fails to create a constitutional settlement which is stable and enduring within the United Kingdom; because it undermines Scotland's role both in Europe and within the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and because its lack of clarity on taxes and resources threatens the interests of Scottish business, Scottish people and Scottish jobs."
  The Secretary of State referred on a number of occasions to my friend and his friend, Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Sir Malcolm said that he did not believe that a measure such as the Scotland Bill would necessarily lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, but predicted that it would lead to a generation of constitutional turmoil. It is perhaps worth recalling that prediction when we examine the Bill's details.
  Our amendment makes it clear that we do not seek to oppose the principle of the proposals, but we oppose the manner in which the Bill attempts to establish them. On 11 September 1997, the Scottish people endorsed the concept of a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers, and I respect that democratically expressed view. We have always said that if that were the clear verdict of the Scottish people, as Conservatives and Unionists, we would try to make it work, not only to Scotland's benefit but in the way least likely to damage the United Kingdom.
  Scottish Conservatives will stand for and participate in a Scottish Parliament, and we will ensure that the voice of Scottish conservatism is heard loud and clear within that new democratic institution. As Unionists, we will continue to attempt to thwart the nationalists' ambitions for separation, which lay at the heart of their support this summer for the Government's devolution proposals.
  We shall approach the Bill also in a constructive manner. Ideally, we would not have started from the same basis. We maintain our view that the Bill contains within it the seeds that will loosen the bonds that hold together the United Kingdom and could well lead to its break-up. We have no regrets that we placed those fears firmly before the people of Scotland in the referendum, even if they ultimately chose to take the risk, because that is what democracy is about. We can take pride in having had the courage, against the odds, to stand up for our principles and to have spoken the truth as we saw it.
  The political reality is now clear: there will be a Scottish Parliament. The irony is that we are considering a Bill that is so badly drafted, that so comprehensively fails to face up to the need to avoid creating conflict between Scotland and England and that reduces Scotland's influence within both Europe and the United Kingdom that it is for us as Conservatives—the one party that stood against devolution—to try now, for the sake of the United Kingdom, to make the proposals work.
  The nationalists long for the proposals to fail. They know, as we do, that failure will be the quickest road to separation. The Liberal Democrats are so immersed in a romantic haze of Gladstonian home rule euphoria that they can no longer see the wood for the trees. So far, they have had very little constructive comment to offer to the debate. Both the nationalists' and the Liberal Democrats'
  36
  attitudes are dangerous because, whatever we may think of the proposals and the dangers inherent within them, no one can gainsay that the proposals are fundamental and historic, and that they will change the very nature of our constitution.
  I am glad that—apparently, from reports before Christmas—our arguments have been listened to and that the entire Bill will be considered on the Floor of the House. A constitutional measure of this significance and magnitude should not be spirited away to a Committee Room. Moreover, it is an insult to Wales and to the Government of Wales Bill that that Bill, at the insistence of the Secretary of State for Wales, will be humiliated by not being considered in a similar manner. The Secretary of State for Scotland obviously has a much greater awareness of the far-reaching constitutional character of his legislation than his Welsh colleague has of his.
  We shall treat the Scotland Bill with all the seriousness that a major constitutional measure merits. The Bill's seriousness has been acknowledged by the fact that all its stages will be taken on the Floor of the House. It will be our purpose not to delay or to destroy, but to try to redeem this unsatisfactory constitutional hotchpotch. We do not fear reform of the constitution, as long as it is demonstrably beneficial and intrinsically stable. After all, over the years it has been Conservative Governments who have developed the system of government in Scotland and, in particular, the devolution of administration.
  Our positive aims, which we shall bring to our consideration of the Bill, are the improvement of Scottish government and the strengthening, rather than the weakening, of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will respond to our arguments—[Interruption.] If they care to listen, I hope that the Government will respond to our arguments in the same positive way that we make them.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I wonder whether I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly. Did he say that his party would not seek to delay the Bill at all? Is he also making that commitment for the House of Lords?
  Mr. Ancram: I am saying that we are seeking not to delay or destroy the Bill, but to make it workable in a way that I believe it is not at the moment. They are our positive aims which we shall bring to the legislation.
  I harbour no great hopes that we shall get a hearing from the Government. The haphazard and curiously arrogant way in which they have approached the legislation has at times bordered on the irresponsible. The path to this legislation has been strewn with delay and incompetence—[Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, but why, given the mad rush of the summer when we were told that there was such urgency for devolution that there was no time for proper debate before the referendum, are we only now, four months after the referendum, starting on this legislation? [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence says, "Five years," but his party has had 18 years to prepare the legislation, and it is quite amazing that it has taken so long.
  What sort of incompetence ensures that as we begin considering the legislation, we are only now told that there will be no proper home for the Scottish Parliament when it is first elected, nor, indeed, for many months after

  37
  that? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when the recently announced Holyrood Parliament building will be ready. What will be the true cost? We have heard another estimate today—it is just one of many, and each is higher than the last. What will be the cost of housing the Parliament in temporary accommodation in the interim, and where will that money come from? No one seems to know, but the Government have had all of 18 years to think it through.
  Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State and I have a reasonably well-publicised disagreement about what the best location for the Parliament would have been, but I am rather confused by the Opposition spokesman's remarks. Is he saying that he would have started to build or renovate the Parliament building earlier? If so, at what stage—before the election, or before the referendum? At what stage would he have prepared the Parliament so that we could have walked into it?
  Mr. Ancram: I would not have prepared the Parliament because we did not propose such a Parliament. However, the Labour party has been proposing this Parliament for 18 years, since it was last in office. It is extraordinary that the first victim of homelessness of this Government appears to be the Scottish Parliament, once it has been elected. If any business proceeded with its basic structural planning in that way, it would be lucky to survive. The Government should have the grace to be ashamed.
  Let us face it—the newly proposed building at Holyrood will cost considerably more than the people of Scotland were told by the Secretary of State during the referendum campaign. He must admit that all this expenditure will come from moneys that would otherwise have been available for Scotland's schools, hospitals, roads and housing. Scotland, we are told, deserves a Parliament building commensurate with its status, and we do not begrudge some extra cost to achieve that. Of course, none of us wants a Scottish Parliament to be inadequately housed, but why were we not told about the costs during the referendum campaign, when those of us who predicted that the cost projections would prove woefully underestimated were accused of cynical scaremongering? Let the Government tell that now to parents looking for extra resources for their children's schools or to patients waiting for operations.
  Did the Secretary of State—I will give way to him so that he can answer the question—know that his White Paper figures were inaccurate? If he did, why did he not come clean during the referendum campaign? Alternatively, was he so badly advised that what was clear to the rest of us was kept from him by his advisers? In that case, must he not accept that he and his office have been grossly incompetent? It must be one of those answers. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to respond. The sad thing is that it is the people of Scotland and not the Secretary of State who will have to pay the price for that incompetence.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to remind the House how many millions of pounds went down the plughole with the poll tax?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady will remember that because of the response to the poll tax, it was removed
  38
  and the policy was changed. I suspect that she is not saying that if the Scottish Parliament turns out not to work, she will call for its abolition in five years' time.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am slightly puzzled. Does my right hon. Friend genuinely believe that the point about the Parliament building would have made a difference to the outcome of the referendum?
  Mr. Ancram: It would not have made a difference in itself, but if my hon. Friend allows me to develop my remarks, he will find that the Parliament building is the first of a number of issues on which points that we made during the referendum campaign, when we were accused of scaremongering, are now turning out to be the truth.
  I offer the Secretary of State my best wishes on his decision to leave Westminster and to commit himself by standing for the Scottish Parliament. I presume that he will stand down as Secretary of State. If, perchance, he attained the rank of First Minister—that must be up to the Scottish electorate—and was bound by the collective responsibility of a Westminster Cabinet job, he would hardly be able to deliver devolution, because his first responsibility would be to a United Kingdom Cabinet. I take it that if the right hon. Gentleman was First Minister, he would stand down as Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Gray: Am I right to understand that if there was a Conservative majority in the Scottish Parliament and if, as a result, my right hon. Friend had the good fortune to be appointed First Minister, he would give up his job here as Secretary of State and would resign his seat in this House?
  Mr. Ancram: That hypothesis is unlikely to arise. The principle, however, behind what my hon. Friend has suggested is logical and one that I would expect the Secretary of State to follow.
  Rather charmingly, the Secretary of State has told us on many occasions that he and the Scottish Parliament will have to learn what he calls new tricks, a somewhat strange and circus-like description of how he sees the Scottish Parliament operating. It appears that he will also have to make new friends.
  The great new political adventure for Scotland does not, apparently, hold similar attractions for the vast majority of the right hon. Gentleman's Scottish colleagues here. The Foreign Secretary seems to want to stick with international affairs or whatever here in London although, to be fair to him, he was never a great enthusiast for a Scottish Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who most certainly was an enthusiast, suddenly finds his recently rehatched plot to become the real tied occupant of his flat in No. 10 Downing street infinitely more attractive.
  The Secretary of State for Defence—I am sorry that he has left his place on the Front Bench—who once publicly and passionately committed himself to standing for the Scottish Parliament, apparently now sees himself as God's gift to our armed forces and as indispensable. Is it not wonderful how a few months at the Cabinet table quench a Scottish Labour Front Bencher's enthusiasm for the building of the brave new Scotland?

  39
  What of the rest of the Scottish Labour Members? We learned before Christmas that only a mere handful of them share the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for this historic adventure. Most, apparently, feel historically adventurous enough here at Westminster. Most Labour Back Benchers appear quite happy to abandon their responsibilities for the education, health, housing and local problems of their constituents and to become, effectively, part-time Members of Parliament here. So much for bravehearts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Labour Members may jeer. How many of the current Scottish Labour Members of Parliament will stand for the Scottish Parliament? Will it be five, 10 or 12? Hands up those who will stand for the Scottish Parliament. Not a single hand has risen on this occasion.
  Mr. Hogg: Is not the point being made by my right hon. Friend all the more remarkable when one reflects that the work load of Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies will be infinitely less after devolution? Is it not truly remarkable that they are not anxious to sit in the Scottish Parliament, where the real work will be done?
  Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, to which I shall refer in a moment.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House on how many occasions he turned his back on constituencies in Scotland when they rejected him for the inadequacy of his performance in the House? As far as I know, they were East Lothian and Edinburgh, South. No other constituency in Scotland was prepared to select him, let alone let him stand.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman totally misses the point. The Secretary of State is telling us that this is an historic political adventure. Why do not his Back Benchers agree with him? Why are they voting with their backsides and remaining here?
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I must make some progress.
  The Bill sets up a Scottish Parliament. It provides for income tax-varying powers. It seeks to identify the powers that will be held by a Scottish Parliament by defining those that are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. As a lawyer, I have to say that it is a mixed bag. There are areas that are ambiguous, areas that are somewhat frightening in their draconian effects on individual rights and a few areas that are incomprehensible, but they are essentially matters for the Committee stage.
  What worries me most today and is at the heart of our amendment is the general underlying thesis in the Government's approach that, whatever the concerns about the viability of the proposals, it will be all right on the day, because everybody will want it to be and will want to make it work. New Labour, new politics, new consensus, new tricks and no problems may sound fine, but to rely on that as the basis for long-term constitutional
  40
  reform is to fly in the face of history and the natural forces of politics. Historically, those who do that tend to court disaster.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: First, I will make some progress.
  We know, because they have told us, that members of the Scottish National party will try to undermine and destroy any comfortable consensus between Edinburgh and Westminster. We also know that there are Labour Members in England who are concerned by what they see as Scotland having its cake and eating it and England paying. We know that there are potential rivalries of great magnitude within a devolved United Kingdom, not least when the slumbering English giant begins to stir. To build a constitutional reform of such magnitude on the shifting sands of a romantic dream of brotherly love and eternal co-operation is, quite bluntly, unrealistic.
  Constitutional reform should never be undertaken on the basis of things as we would wish them to be—on the fair-weather or best-case scenario. It should be tested against the likelihood of the storm, against the worst-case scenario—the times when consensus and co-operation are at a premium, if they exist at all. Little in the Bill passes that test, and that failure bodes ill for Scotland and the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Canavan: The proposals are based not on shifting sands, but on the expressed wish of the people of Scotland. There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the Opposition amendment, which
  "while accepting and respecting the clear decision of the Scottish people",
  goes on to declare that
  "the Scotland Bill is not … acceptable".
  The Scotland Bill was based on the White Paper and the proposals in the White Paper were acceptable to the people of Scotland, as expressed in the referendum. Therefore, the Opposition are saying that the acceptable has become unacceptable. It is a clear contradiction in terms.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman, who failed to get an answer from the Secretary of State, who misunderstood his original question, might do me the honour of listening to my argument. We accept that the vote in the referendum was for a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. That question was put to the people of Scotland. We are asking whether the Bill will provide that in a way that is stable and will work to the benefit of the people of Scotland. I shall continue to argue that the Bill has a number of glaring omissions and contains provisions that will increase the instability of the constitution of the United Kingdom and ultimately make the proposals unworkable. That is why we shall seek constructively to analyse the omissions and weaknesses in the Bill, in order to correct them.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ancram: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make a little more progress, as I am conscious of time.

  41
  The central need is to eliminate the areas of potential conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster and between Scotland and England more generally, with which the Bill is littered. The greatest danger to the United Kingdom lies within those areas. As Unionists, we must seek to eradicate the potential flashpoints.
  The most glaring areas of potential conflict are those outlined in our amendment. The failure to resolve the fundamental problems of the imbalance between Scotland and England that the proposals in the Bill make inevitable will eventually and inevitably lead to English resentment. The undermining and marginalising of Scotland's position in the United Kingdom and within the Councils of the European Union will inevitably lead to Scottish resentment. Other factors include the creation of constitutional flashpoints by the inclusion of half-baked and ill-thought-out provisions relating to the increase of powers, the exercise of vetoes and the creation of unworkable constitutional anomalies. Last but certainly not least is the failure to provide any assurance or definition on the face of the Bill on the future financial relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend have an answer to the so-called West Lothian question, and is it part of the policy of the official Opposition to deal with that question when we consider the Bill in Committee?
  Mr. Ancram: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am coming to an important point to which I have already referred.
  Each of the areas that I have set out provides the rocks on which the United Kingdom could ultimately founder, yet the Government—and we have heard it again today—sweep our concerns aside with bland assurances of consensus, concordats and good will.
  Let me say in all seriousness to the Secretary of State that consensus is not a natural political state, concordats rarely survive political change and good will can never be the cornerstone of the realist, yet that is all we are offered in response to our concerns. For those reasons, we believe that, in its present form, the Bill fails the worst-case scenario test in each of the categories that I mentioned, and that, unless the deficiencies are rectified during the legislative process, our dire predictions during the referendum might well come to pass.
  We need to look more closely at the areas that I have set out. The question of the post-devolutionary balance of the United Kingdom is central. It is most clearly seen in the consequences of devolution on the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster. For all the Prime Minister's protestations last year about sovereignty remaining with him
  "as an English MP at Westminster"
  and a somewhat half-hearted reassertion in the Bill at clause 27(7) of the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for Scotland, the long-term position of the Westminster Parliament and its Members is far from clear. It should be robustly clarified by a firm statutory affirmation that, notwithstanding the establishment of the Scottish Parliament or anything in the Bill, the supreme authority of the United Kingdom will remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Scotland.
  42
  As I understand it, that is the position of the Government in practice. I believe that they should have the courage to put it on the face of the Bill, so that there can be no room for doubt by anyone outside. To do so would underwrite the political imperative of the Union and provide reassurance that the Bill is not the beginning of a slippery slope to separation.
  Mr. Dewar: Has not the right hon. Gentleman looked at clause 27(7)?
  Mr. Ancram: Had the Secretary of State been listening, he would have heard me describe it as a half-hearted reassertion. I am asking for a full reassertion of the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament.
  Another area of instability has been referred to by a number of my hon. Friends. It is known as the West Lothian question, but might more accurately be described as the English dimension. Surely it is quite clear that within the Union we cannot have a Parliament where some Members can vote on matters affecting the constituents of others, but where they can no longer vote on them on behalf of their own constituents. I can envisage English resentment arising if a group of Scottish Members with much reduced work loads in relation to their own constituencies were able to influence decisions on matters that had nothing to do with them. That situation has all the makings of a classic constitutional grievance, which could quickly become a flashpoint—in this case, in the most sensitive area of future Anglo-Scottish relations. An answer must be found to that.
  Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman has pinpointed what he believes to be an area of instability. What instabilities were there with the United Kingdom Parliament before 1972, when hon. Members from Northern Ireland could vote on matters relating to Scotland, but not on matters relating to their own constituencies?
  Mr. Ancram: I am coming to one of the corollaries of the Northern Ireland situation. There were far fewer hon. Members from Northern Ireland relative to the representation of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  There are no easy answers, only less than satisfactory options, such as the designation of Bills as English Bills open only to English Members, an all-powerful English Grand Committee sitting at Westminster on certain days, or the more extreme idea of a separate English Parliament. All those proposals contain serious constitutional flaws or dangers to the Union. They all flirt with English nationalism, which is every bit as dangerous to the Union as Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism. We shall need to explore and debate all those options in the coming months. The private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), to be debated this Friday, will provide a useful opportunity to begin that process.
  The Bill provides for the boundary commission to create parity of representation in terms of electoral quota between England and Scotland. In due course, that will reduce Scotland's over-representation at Westminster, but the proposal has some weaknesses. It will create parity of electoral quota where there will be no parity of responsibility or quality of constituency representation. Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster will have

  43
  considerably less to do than their English counterparts. The electoral quota cannot measure work load in their case. There is a strong argument for more stringent criteria, which would result in even fewer Scottish Members at Westminster, reflecting the fact that Scotland will have its own Parliament and the ability to legislate and govern for itself.
  The next weakness is the time scale. The Bill envisages the boundary commission operating to its normal timetable, with the next report due only after the next election. Apart from squandering good will in England, it cannot be good for Scotland to find that, within a year or two of the Scottish Parliament getting going, its numbers are cut to reflect the changes in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster. It makes little sense to set up a Parliament, ask it to bed down and then make fundamental changes to its size and composition.
  We want the boundary commission to do its work before the next election—ideally in time for its findings to be taken into account in the elections for the Scottish Parliament, as well as for the next Westminster elections. If it starts now, there is no reason why that cannot be achieved. It would be a way to calm one area of potential resentment.
  As great a matter for concern is the focus for resentment that could arise from perceived broken promises and dashed expectations. Much was made during the referendum campaign of devolution strengthening Scotland's position in Europe and in the United Kingdom. Some of us questioned that at the time and were roundly abused for doing so, but it appears that we were right. The Bill is ominously silent on those issues, particularly on Europe. Schedule 5(6), to which the Secretary of State referred, merely allows the Scottish Parliament to assist Ministers on Europe. There is no statutory protection of Scotland's current direct access to the Council of Ministers. There is not even a statutory formulation of the lesser promise in the White Paper of access by invitation of the Westminster Government. No attempt has been made to implement the brave words in the White Paper about giving Scotland a presence in Brussels. It is all left to agreements and concordats, which will be transient and non-binding.
  At a time when critical matters affecting the future livelihood of Scots in agriculture, fishing and development funding need to be dealt with, Scotland's input is apparently to be dependent on a passing political agreement that can be neither guaranteed nor enforced. If ever there was a subject for what the Secretary of State has described as making "provision against every eventuality", it must be in this crucial area, but the Bill fails dismally and damagingly to do so.
  Mr. Hogg: Is there not a further difficulty with the presence of representatives from the Scottish Parliament in European Councils? Ministers from the Scottish Office are listened to in the Council of Ministers because they are Ministers of the United Kingdom Parliament. That will not apply to Members of the Scottish Parliament. They will not be listened to by the Council of Ministers, because they will not be United Kingdom Ministers.
  Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, but the problem goes further than that. I suspect that
  44
  the reason for the lack of provision in the Bill is that, although the White Paper outlined the possibility of a Scottish Executive Minister leading for the United Kingdom in the Council of Ministers, no answer was given on how he would answer to the United Kingdom Parliament for the leadership that he gave. There would be a serious question mark about accountability if that situation were allowed for.
  In the light of the assurances given on Scotland's voice in Europe, the realisation that access to European Councils for Members of the Scottish Parliament will be guaranteed only by the good will and the whim of future Westminster Governments will create great resentment in Scotland. It will be a gift to the forces of nationalism and those who seek separation. I seriously suggest to the Government that they need to do something about that during the passage of the Bill.
  It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that the situation will remain as it is now. It plainly will not. At the moment, we have one Government speaking with one voice. In future, there will be two Governments who will not necessarily agree.
  We must also question the marginalisation of Scottish Members at Westminster and the concomitant diminution of the influence of Scotland at the centre. The history of Ulster Members at Westminster in the 50 years between the setting up and the suspending of Stormont is salutary. The once powerful and influential voice of Ulster at the centre of United Kingdom affairs quietened quickly after devolution and then grew even quieter. I do not want Scotland to follow that precedent, which would be the antithesis of the stronger voice in the Union that was promised to Scots by the Government during the referendum campaign.
  The stark truth is that after devolution, Scottish Members will be comparatively part-time. They will have very little conventional constituency work to pursue. However the West Lothian question is resolved, they will surely feel diffident about becoming involved in affairs that have nothing to do with them. They will be seen as different in the House. Gradually, they will be treated as different as well.
  Nothing in the Bill will prevent the same fate befalling Scottish Members as befell Ulster Members in the past. The leading Westminster Scot, the Secretary of State, will have a diminished role—if the post survives at all. The Bill does not statutorily entrench his position. The few powers left to him could be exercised by any Secretary of State in the Westminster Government. The traditional protector of Scottish interests and the fount of Scottish influence in the United Kingdom Cabinet will at best become an empty vessel and at worst be abolished, leaving even less focus for Scottish Members at Westminster. With the Scottish Law Officers being withdrawn from the Westminster Government, that focus and influence will be weakened further, along with the influence that Scottish law has been able to bring to United Kingdom affairs. Scotland will risk becoming increasingly marginalised. That will be a matter for substantial and justified grievance.
  However, the biggest potential flashpoint and the greatest focus for resentment could arise from the Bill's failings on the financial relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Even before the Bill was published, there were stirrings in north-eastern Labour

  45
  doocots about the sharing of resources in the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland's share. The Labour-dominated Treasury Select Committee investigated the Barnett formula. Its findings were not particularly helpful to Scotland.
  Those of us who predicted such stirrings during the referendum campaign were accused of being alarmist. I presumed—perhaps naively—that those accusations of alarmism would be matched by some statutory provisions, giving Scots an assurance that their needs would be recognised in the Bill. There is no mention in the Bill of formulas or needs. It says only, in clause 61, that
  "The Secretary of State"—
  it does not even say which one—
  "shall from time to time make payments … out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine."
  Under the test of the worst-case scenario, that does not even pass first base. It is certainly not the type of offer to pay, on which I would be prepared to sign away my prospects in life or business. It is not even a wing and a prayer. It simply will not do to say that there will be a written understanding.
  I remember that the late Lord Home of Hirsel used to say:
  "If a man tells you that his word is as good as his bond, always take his bond."
  In this case, there is not even a bond to take. Indeed, there is no long-term word that can be relied on. There are only bland assurances that cannot hide the truth. That truth is that the clause is an ultimate Treasury victory, allowing the Treasury to make the rules as it goes along. To Scottish people, it is a pig in a poke. After all the wild promises made to Scotland about what devolution would give the Scots, when one considers the leverage that could be given to the Treasury and the Westminster Government, the potential for resentment and a genuine feeling of betrayal in Scotland is enormous. Once again, the only winner would be nationalism.
  Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely listening with care. I have grasped the fact that the right hon. Gentleman believes that there should be a Scottish Parliament. I am now trying to understand from his speech what that animal should look like. What financial situation is he advocating?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall obviously table amendments in Committee. I should like a reference in the Bill to the needs of Scotland in relation to the finances that will be available. Those who say that I do not know what I intend to do might care to look at amendments to the Government of Wales Bill, in which a similar problem arises. They will see that I am making some moves in that direction.
  Mr. Dewar: As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I quoted the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) defending the present financial arrangements on the ground that they were based on the needs of Scotland. Is that the Conservative Opposition's position?
  Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) speaks for the Conservative Opposition. I am saying that such a fundamental constitutional reform will have to stand the test of time.
  46
  In order that it does, one must test it not against the good times, when everybody agrees, but against the bad times, when people will not agree. There is nothing in the Bill in relation to the financing of the Scottish Parliament and the needs of the Scottish people that gives any assurance in that direction. The Secretary of State knows that no concordat has been devised, no consensus has ever been arrived at, which, at the end of the day, can give a binding assurance of the kind for which the people of Scotland are looking.
  Given the Government's wild and ill-considered drive to fragment England into regions, the danger zone will not get any easier. Indeed, it will worsen as the competition for limited resources becomes more regionally focused. It is not good enough to rely on the status quo and pretend that nothing will have changed. A great deal will have changed—much of it because of the Bill.
  It is clear that, in the area of finance, taxation and overall control of Scottish spending, the Bill creates a minefield, which could be the biggest flashpoint of resentment. It is in that area that the principle of devolution will really be tested. There is little or nothing in the Bill that creates any confidence that the exercise will not end in tears. Such main areas of potential conflict must be addressed if the proposals are not to undermine the Union. There are many other such areas which, because of the amount of time that I have now, I shall examine in Committee.
  Mr. John Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman advances a curious argument about needs assessment. If a needs assessment were carried out in different parts of the United Kingdom, does not he recognise that some of the unidentified aspects of public expenditure that seem to find their way into spending in the south-east of England would also be exposed in the analysis? Over the decades of a Conservative Administration, the Treasury confirmed that Scotland was a net contributor to the United Kingdom to the tune of £27 billion—[Interruption.] The figures are given in Treasury written answers. Hon. Members can look at them in Hansard. In that context, the right hon. Gentleman's rather peripheral arguments do not make any sense.
  Mr. Ancram: On the last point, I think that we are all used to the Scottish nationalists' ability in creative accounting; we know all about that. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The moment one begins to open the can of worms of regional needs—it is opened even further when England is fragmented into regions—the more one sees the type of competition between regions to which he referred. Yes, I suspect that the south-east would not come off too well—but nor would Scotland. I am arguing not for a needs assessment but for a reference to need—more than that in the Bill at the moment, which leaves the decision on financing merely to the whim of an undetermined Secretary of State from time to time. I do not believe that that is good enough for the Scottish people.
  Mr. Dewar: Although I do not want to have a debate, which we shall clearly have at a later stage, is the right hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that he supports the Barnett formula?
  Mr. Ancram: I have said throughout the debate and the referendum campaign that we believe that the Barnett

  47
  formula has reflected need. In the longer term, need must be the measure of finance. The right hon. Gentleman is failing to face up to the point that there is no assurance, no guarantee in his Bill, that need will even be one of the criteria considered. The people of Scotland have a right to be concerned about that.
  The Bill purports to create a Scottish Parliament within a strengthened United Kingdom. We accept that purpose, but the Bill patently fails to achieve it. Its failure to eradicate areas of potential cross-border conflict—indeed, its almost uncanny ability to create them—makes it dangerous to Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. For those reasons, the Opposition find the Bill unacceptable in its present form.
  One option—I must say this, I suppose, with my tongue in my cheek—would be for the Government to withdraw the Bill and start again, on the basis that it is better for Scotland and the United Kingdom to take a little more time and get the matter right than to muddle on and get it wrong. If, as I suspect, they will not do that, I only hope that they will consider carefully the changes that we shall propose if the Bill secures its Second Reading.
  As Unionists who opposed devolution from the start, it would be tempting for us to stand back from the legislation, let it pass, watch it fail and then say, "We told you so." But we know, as Unionists, that if the Bill and the devolution that it proposes fail, it will drive a further dagger into the heart of the Union and strengthen the hand of those who wish its end. The Bill creates a road junction—one which, constitutionally, we would rather not have reached. The junction has two exits: one marked "independence", and the other "an intact United Kingdom". We must fix our direction firmly towards the second.
  We respect the decision of the Scottish people to create a Scottish Parliament. We want one that will give the Scots the esteem that they seek, while sustaining the United Kingdom with all the benefits that the historic and unique Union can still bring to the people of these islands. We believe that that can, with difficulty and imagination, be achieved. We are equally convinced that the Bill fails to achieve it. The Government must be persuaded to take a fresh look at the proposals. I call on all those who believe in Scotland's historic role in the Union to demonstrate the depth and sincerity of their concern, and to support us and our amendment in the Lobby tomorrow.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I look forward with considerable interest to the amendments that he will table—not least those with regard to securing finances for the Scottish Parliament. He may indeed persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to agree to them.
  It is a great privilege to be the first hon. Member from the Liberal Democrat Benches to be called to speak—in support of the Bill. The Bill will give Scotland its own Parliament for the first time for nearly 300 years. It embodies in legislative form the agreement of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I shall not disappoint the right hon. Member for Devizes; I shall quote Gladstone later. The right hon. Gentleman said that Liberal Democrats have got lost in a mist of home rule Gladstonism, but he should look at the record.
  48
  The Liberal Democrats entered the Scottish Constitutional Convention with the Labour party and many others from many walks of civic life in Scotland when the Conservative party rejected the opportunity to do so—as, indeed, did the Scottish National party. We rolled up our sleeves and did the hard work. Anybody who attended meetings of the constitutional convention knows that there was no misty-eyedness in trying to agree workable proposals.
  The Bill is the legislative form of the proposals that were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Scottish people on 11 September. They showed beyond any shadow of doubt that home rule is the settled will of the Scottish people. The Bill goes a long way towards fulfilling a policy goal for which—I do not think that anybody quibbles with this—my party and its predecessor parties have campaigned for longer than any other party. When I quote some of my Liberal predecessors, I do so not so much to prove consistency as to illustrate the years of misgovernment to which Scotland has been subjected and the patience and persistence that we have had to show before reaching this historic Second Reading debate.
  As the right hon. Member for Devizes would expect, I wish to refer to Mr. Gladstone, who said in his second Midlothian speech on 26 November 1879:
  "if we can make arrangements under which Ireland, Scotland, Wales, portions of England, can deal with questions of local and special interest to themselves more efficiently than Parliament now can, that, I will say, will be the attainment of a great national good. The Scotch members … always show in the transaction of Scotch business remarkable shrewdness and efficiency, yet all find cause to complain, and complain seriously and gravely, that they cannot get the Scotch business properly transacted.
  The Parliament is overweighted. The Parliament is almost overwhelmed."
  Mr. Rowe: I have great respect for Scots, wherever they may be in the United Kingdom. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the government of Glasgow during the past 40 or 50 years—when it has been entirely in the hands of Scots—has hardly given cause for great congratulation?
  Mr. Wallace: To be fair, Glasgow is miles better than it was 40 years ago. Glasgow has suffered, as have many parts of Britain, from an electoral system that gives overwhelming power to one party, sometimes with a minority vote—although that has not always been the case in Glasgow. The Bill does not propose that, and the Parliament will fairly reflect the different political strands that exist in Scotland.
  Mr. Godman: As the husband of a Glasgow city councillor and former Strathclyde regional councillor, may I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that many poor people in Glasgow benefited considerably from Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow city council, despite the activities of a small number of councillors in recent times?
  Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) would probably confirm that, in many respects, Strathclyde region's provision of roads and education was better than that of the old Argyll county council. I did not agree with everything Strathclyde region did, but it was not the monster that the previous Prime Minister made it out to be.

  49
  During the Second Reading debate of the Government of Scotland Bill on 30 May 1913, the then Member for Aberdeenshire, East, Mr. Cowan, showed that plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose. The burning issue of that day was temperance reform but, allowing for a change of issue, these words could have been used during the recent referendum campaign. He said:
  "To my knowledge, there has been a Scottish majority in this House in favour of Scottish temperance reform since 1885—a majority which, being a minority of the House, has always been voted down by the English Members. So the Scottish Members have found it impossible to make effective the mandate that they have been given."
  Mr. Cowan went on in a way that reflects the experience of many of us who have had to listen to Conservative contributions to Scottish debates. He said that English Conservative Members with
  "shootings, fishings, or deer forests in Scotland, imagine themselves experts on Scottish affairs and insist on wasting our time and their own by intervening in Scottish Debates."—[Official Report, 30 May 1913; Vol. 53, c. 476–79.]
  He went on to say that Parliament was "breaking down" under the system that existed in 1913. And so say all of us.
  In our day, we have experienced a lack of time for Scottish affairs. We have fewer opportunities to question Ministers than our English counterparts. There were only 13 hours on the Floor of the House in the last Session of the previous Parliament to debate Scottish education, and a little over three hours to debate Scottish housing. Changes to our law are sometimes tagged on to substantially English Bills.
  Those of us who remember the measure that introduced aggravated trespass will have noted that, in Committee, the issue was barely addressed. There were only one or two Scottish Members on the Committee. When the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) moved an amendment on Report, a debate that went on for well over two hours was replied to by the then Minister of State—the former Member, I am happy to say, for Edinburgh, West—who put his head down and read his briefing note in a matter of two minutes and did not address any of the issues that had been raised in a serious debate. The law of Scotland was changed fundamentally without adequate debate on the Floor of the House.
  The poll tax was a classic example of an issue in respect of which Scottish Members, to use the words of the former Member for Aberdeenshire, East in 1913, found it impossible to make effective the mandate they had been given.
  Palliatives have been tried, including the Scottish Grand Committee. As a result of measures taken by the former right hon. Member for Stirling, it was an itinerant Scottish Grand Committee. Who will forget the occasion during Question Time in the last Parliament when the former Minister of State—the former Member for Edinburgh, West—was asked what the Scottish Grand Committee had done? He took a deep breath and said, "It has met." That was probably one of the most accurate answers he gave, as that was all the Committee had done—it was all that it was allowed to do. The government of Scotland suffered and there was inadequate time for important issues to be addressed.
  Home rule allows us an opportunity to right the wrongs of Scottish misgovernment and to renew and replenish Scottish democracy. In doing that, we will help English
  50
  Members of Parliament, as the business of this Parliament will not be taken up with Scottish affairs. More time will be released for effective scrutiny of English legislation.
  Mr. Grieve: I take it from what he says that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that, after enactment of the Bill, Scottish Members in this House should not have the right to vote on matters of purely English concern. Using the logic that he deploys—which I accept and understand—that must be his position.
  Mr. Wallace: That federalist solution has been the policy of the Liberal party and the Liberal Democrats for the greater part of this century. [Interruption.] Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) says from a sedentary position, it has been our policy for 100 years.
  We are doing more than correcting wrongs; this is a rare event. One tries to think of an example in history of a new Parliament being established in a nation that has enjoyed a long democratic tradition. It allows us a tremendous opportunity to break away from hidebound traditions and inflexible practices. We can give real substance to the idea of open, accountable and inclusive democracy—and much of that can be reflected in the Standing Orders.
  I look forward to serving on the committee to be chaired by the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, in which I hope we will have innovative ideas. We must try to find ways to make the Parliament responsive and willing to take on board the views of our constituents.
  Whatever disappointments may have been expressed in some quarters that the Calton hill site was not chosen for the Parliament, I believe that a new building at Holyrood offers us an opportunity to equip the Parliament with the best in new technology and telecommunications and to allow electronic access to people from all parts of Scotland. Clearly, that goes beyond the scope of the Bill.
  I wish to add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and his officials on the first-class job they have done in drafting the Bill. There can be no doubt as to the task set for them and I believe that they have responded to it promptly and admirably. I found parts of the Bill almost pleasurable reading—if one can find any pleasure in reading such material.
  Those of us who favour a much wider programme of constitutional reform found some of the things for which we have argued are now in legislative form, including the provision of fixed-term Parliaments, a provision to secure the confirmation of a First Minister and ways of getting rid of a Government in a statutory form. Clause 22 sets out a statutory code for dealing with Members' interests and creates criminal offences in cases where it is abused.
  I wish to identify three elements in the Bill that we particularly welcome and which make a difference between the Bill and the legislation passed in the late 1970s. First, I refer to the electoral system. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) negotiated hard to get the principle of proportional representation accepted. We believed that that was important if we were to ensure that the Parliament was acceptable to all areas of Scotland. It is to the credit of the Labour party that, having achieved a majority on a minority of votes under the first-past-the-post system,

  51
  it has willingly conceded—indeed, warmly embraced—the additional member system that is now in a statutory form.
  I welcome the fact that there are separate seats for Orkney and Shetland—something for which I have argued. I have had a personal difficulty in determining whether to stand for the Parliament as I have a choice of constituency, but I shall take my chance and seek the nomination for Orkney.
  As the Secretary of State knows, the Scottish Constitutional Convention considered the question of the islands. As he said, that also must be a matter for the Parliament, but having a new Parliament will give us the opportunity to take account of the fact that well-intentioned legislation, which can work well in other parts of the country, often does not apply to or rest easily when applied to an island. We will want to explore ways in which the Parliament can tackle that better than this place has been able to do.
  The second part of the Bill that we welcome—and is different from the 1978 legislation—is that which contains tax-varying powers. Giving a legislature such powers is what makes it accountable to its electorate. Indeed, in another place during the passage of the previous Bill, the Earl of Home suggested that it would be asking for trouble if he did not give the Parliament tax powers. It is an issue of democracy as to whether the powers are used. During the referendum campaign, we said, "Trust the people." If the people elect to the Scottish Parliament Members who want to exercise those powers and who have put before the electorate a programme based on exercising them, that would be an exercise of democracy.
  The amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Devizes talks of the Bill doing damage to Scottish business interests. None of those who want a Scottish Parliament wants to do down Scotland or Scottish business and enterprise. Members of the Scottish Parliament will think carefully before they make decisions on taxation; there will be many ways in which they can assist business and stimulate a culture of enterprise in our country by using such powers.
  The third aspect of the Bill that is particularly pleasing is the fact that it uses a formula of reserved powers rather than devolved powers. If we were going to start with a clean sheet, as a Liberal Democrat I would say that all power rests with the community and we surrender up the powers that we believe can be exercised better at a higher level. That is not where we are starting, but the fact that we are using the principle of reserved powers and leaving everything else to the Scottish Parliament is important. It is a principled way to go about the creation of a Scottish Parliament.
  Although we substantially support the Bill, we will nevertheless scrutinise it in Committee. At the very least, we will want to ask the Government to justify why some powers are to be reserved. For example, why do we need a United Kingdom Parliament to give directions on the classification of films or the regulation of the professions? In some cases, we hope to change the Government's mind—for example, on abortion. It is arguable that that is both a health and a criminal legal matter. As both health and the criminal law of Scotland are devolved matters, surely it makes sense that abortion should also be a devolved matter.
  52
  The law in Northern Ireland is different. I asked my noble Friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, whose Abortion Act 1967 changed matters, why Northern Ireland was not included. The answer was, of course, that it was a devolved function for Stormont. I shall not enter into the merits of how the Scottish Parliament should exercise that power. Also, it would make sense to trust it to exercise power sensibly over broadcasting.
  On the appointment of senior judges, I cannot see any reason why we must continue with the formula of the Prime Minister nominating the Lord President and Lord Justice-Clerk. If he can do so only on a nomination from the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, why cannot the latter do it himself? I note too the provision for judicial salaries to be a reserved power—it seems that some judicial trade unionism may have been exercised. Those salaries will come out of the Scottish Parliament's fund. We may not necessarily want to do the judiciary down, but we challenge the Government to tell us why they believe that should be a reserved power.
  On the conduct of elections for membership, the timing of the minimum period from a dissolution to polling day will be a matter for the Secretary of State to determine by order. Is it intended that that order shall apply for all time, or will it apply only for each election? I welcome the provision for independents to stand for the regional elections, but what sort of deposit is intended? Will a sum of money be required or, perhaps, a certain number of signatures to back up a nomination? I welcome plurality, but as we have seen, matters can sometimes get out of hand when people who have no real contribution to make to the democratic process spot a chance of getting loads of publicity.
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to clause 33. I accept that it is an effort to extend the powers of the Parliament into reserved matters, but if the Secretary of State's power to intervene is based on the ground that he has good reason to believe that a Bill contains various provisions and if it can be challenged in this House only under the negative procedure, could it also be challenged by the Lord Advocate if he felt that the Secretary of State did not have reasonable grounds? The words "reasonable grounds" could be open to misinterpretation or abuse by a future Secretary of State if there were a conflict between the two Parliaments.
  I must point out the absence of any provision that would free the political parties from legal challenge if they adopted means that promoted the selection and subsequent election of women candidates. We take seriously the agreement that we entered with the Labour party and have devised a means by which we can deliver, as best we can, particularly through the list system, a 50:50 Scottish Liberal Democrat membership in a Scottish Parliament—but we do not want to find ourselves in the law courts because we have done so. That matter goes beyond this Bill and affects also the European Parliamentary Elections Bill among others.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that for many years when we were involved in the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention some Labour Members promoted the idea of a legislative framework to ensure equality of representation. At the time, all the Liberal Democrat members of the convention were utterly opposed to doing so because they said that it was totally against their Lib-Dem principles. I find it irritating that he

  53
  should be talking of such a clause at this stage. If he had done so all those years ago, we might have been able to work our way forward successfully in Europe, rather than facing the difficulty that now confronts us all. I totally support equal representation, but it is difficult in the circumstances.
  Mr. Wallace: I hear what the hon. Lady says. There has been no change in our position. The state should not legislate on how political parties select their candidates. We are saying that political parties should not be open to a challenge in the courts because they have tried to achieve some sort of gender balance. It is perverse for the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to be used to challenge those—including the political parties—who are trying to do something to change gender balance. We are looking not for legislation that would oblige parties to do so, but for legislation that would give them legal immunity if they did—and we fully intend to do so.
  Much as been said, particularly by the right hon. Member for Devizes, about relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom. My colleagues and I make no secret of, or apology for, the fact that we are a federalist party. We believe that the Bill is consistent with Britain ultimately evolving into a federal United Kingdom. We believe that there would be advantages in federalism, not least in dealing with the English dimension and, perhaps, in allowing greater transparency in the funding arrangements in the different constituent parts of the Union. I do not believe that we are in any way embarking on the so-called slippery slope. What has been proposed today will strengthen the Union.
  While making a programme for the Scottish Television "Platform" series in 1996, Ms Wendy Alexander, who is no doubt well known to the Secretary of State as one of his advisers, visited Catalonia and found that, while there was a sense of nationalism there, no one wanted independence.
  In an article in The Scotsman, Ms Alexander wrote:
  "the Catalan minister of industry … says: 'Why should we walk out of Spain when we have the chance to shape its future? Working for Catalonian prosperity is not a zero sum game, improving Spain's position will benefit us all.'"
  She went on to say:
  "The overwhelming consensus is that secession would mark an abject failure of the autonomy process. For a Scot, weaned on SNP and Tory politicians alike, constantly reasserting the inevitability of a slippery slope to independence, the fascinating discovery is that in Spain it simply does not exist."
  That certainly reflects my experience and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and for Argyll and Bute, who also went to Catalonia five or six years ago. We found that the autonomous powers given to Catalonia were working well and that people saw no advantage whatever in splitting away from Spain. We are embarking on something similar here.
  There was not a triumphalist response to the referendum outcome. It was, rather, the vote of a confident nation that believes that it can trust itself to take power and responsibility for our distinctive education system; for our health service; for the crying needs of Scottish housing; for meeting the challenge of a transport network in both rural and urban areas; for renewing our local democracy; for providing for the first time in almost 300 years our own legislature to amend and modernise our distinctive legal system; and for being a catalyst for Scottish enterprise and culture.
  54
  The Parliament will not be an easy palliative for all Scotland's wrongs; it will take time and perseverance, but we now have the opportunity to take decisions for ourselves. I believe that the Bill provides for a modern, democratic Parliament for a modern, democratic nation, and it will enjoy my party's support.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I do not intend to go down the historical route of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), because the history of the Labour party in relation to home rule is somewhat mixed.
  Until the summer of 1974, I had not really come round to taking seriously the case for constitutional reform: in my previous 10 or 12 years as a member of the Labour party I had always felt that there were other ways of addressing constitutional problems and matters such as the improvement of local government. In 1974, it became clear—not only because of the votes gained by the Scottish National party, as we had seen its fortunes rise and fall before—that there was a deep-seated concern about the way in which the whole of the United Kingdom was being governed.
  Others may wish to go back to Keir Hardie and recite the mantra; that is fair enough, but I would remind hon. Members that the three main points of his election programme in the early days were always Scottish home rule, universal suffrage and—dare I say it?—prohibition. I do not think that, with my constituency and with my habits, it would be consistent for me to advocate that last policy.
  We must support the Bill, and not on the grudging basis on which we sometimes support legislation, as the best that is available. It is a first-class piece of work. It is a tribute to all my Front-Bench colleagues and to the Scottish Office. Everything has been done on time and has, as far as possible, been consistent with the work of the convention.
  I may not share the enthusiasm of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland for the literary merit of the Bill. Reading legislation may be a cure for insomnia but it is not especially exciting—I do not have the vested interest of a member of the legal profession. However, I was happy to support the strategy adopted by my Front-Bench colleagues, of having a referendum and then moving swiftly on to the introduction of legislation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I listened, as one had to do, when the former Member for Glasgow, Govan, Bruce Millan, spoke about all the bitter experience that he had in the 1970s in trying to steer devolution through the House and to convince the people. He said that a pre-legislative referendum was the surest guarantee of a decent and fair hearing in the House. I am fairly confident that that will happen to the Bill, despite the at times unhelpful remarks—that is the Opposition's function—of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
  The legislation will pass the test of the majority—it has already done so in many respects because of the referendum and the parliamentary arithmetic—partly as a consequence of the rigour that is the hallmark of my right hon. Friend's approach to everything that he does. The Bill may be capable of improvement in some respects, but it will certainly go through without substantial

  55
  amendment. If there is to be change, it will be because of the pragmatism that is the hallmark of the present St. Andrew's house team.
  Pragmatism has already been displayed in the choice of site for the Parliament. I live in Edinburgh, and I must be careful—living in Leith does not necessarily make a person a Leither, and I do not want to have my visa withdrawn at Pilrig—but Leith would not have been the idea] site, because the convenience of the few civil servants with direct relation to the Parliament would not, frankly, have been an issue; it would have been too far from the city centre. The Haymarket site had obvious problems as well.
  The 1970s ideas of what the Parliament would do in 1979 are entirely different from what we expect, and will be expected as parliamentarians to provide, today. The facilities at the Calton hill site would not have measured up and would have needed extremely expensive alterations.
  People talk of Calton hill's associations, but we should recognise that most Scots before 1978–79 associated it with the parsimony, the lack of public-spiritedness and the civic duty of a certain section of the Scottish people. I was brought up as a youngster in Edinburgh to believe that it was Scotland's disgrace, not a place of national celebration. A few pillars on the hill are a tribute to the, perhaps misguided, efforts of those Scottish people who participated in the Napoleonic wars. That is not a historic precedent that we especially want to build on.
  Mr. Rowe: Given the hon. Gentleman's frankness about his unwillingness to sponsor temperance, should he not draw considerable encouragement from what is usually organised in the confines of a brewery?
  Mr. O'Neill: In fact, the building in question is the offices of a brewery and I do not know whether the site was ever used for the production of beer. I worked for the firm when I was a student, and the brewery was across the road.
  The brewers, like the bankers, very rarely lose, and this is a classic case. Scottish Courage is a singularly inappropriate name, given the political thinking of that organisation, which was the most intransigent and intractable opponent of devolution and would push even Portillo and the Royal Bank of Scotland into second place. At least, in the end, one group of Scots, and some English people, have already benefited from devolution, and we wish them well.
  The site will provide all the opportunities for the creation of a modern, democratic assembly. I am glad that some of my colleagues intend to go to that Parliament. There has been much sniping and many cheap cracks about those Scottish Labour Members who do not intend to put their names forward for consideration for selection and then, perhaps, for election.
  I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 20 years and I am one of those old dogs who would probably not learn many new tricks and, as my speech tonight has demonstrated, would probably bore the backsides off most of the new Members there. One of the exciting things about the new Parliament is that many new Members will
  56
  participate and there will be plenty of fresh thinking. The tired old Lobby fodder from Westminster should have the chance to watch that process from the galleries.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is explaining why he does not want to sit in the Scottish Parliament—I entirely understand that, and I am not here to push him to do so—but will he accept that, after devolution, his role as a Scottish Member of Parliament will be enormously reduced and that he will lose many of the functions that he now possesses as regards his existing constituency? How will he face that prospect?
  Mr. O'Neill: If I thought that my time down here would be spent on the Floor of the House on Scottish business for many hours and days of the year, I might be concerned about it. I do not wish to bang a drum, but for a number of years I served on the Opposition Front Bench, dealing with Scottish affairs. I had to do a fair amount of work, but I was very conscious that it was shared between a number of colleagues. We were not overstretched, apart from when we had to go through the night. However, what did frustrate me when I was underemployed, and apparently ineffective, was that, throughout the 18 years of Tory rule, I was a member of a party with a majority in Scotland, yet was unable to change the legislation that the Government were putting through.
  The House has heard examples of the lack of work. Some of us have, for a number of years, played a comparatively small part in Scottish affairs, mainly because we knew that many of our colleagues also wished to play a part. I have been involved in security, foreign affairs and trade and industry matters. As Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, there is still quite a lot of work that I can legitimately do, and, given the reserved powers, will be able to do after an election.
  The proposal to reduce the number of seats will be dealt with in due process, and not in the hurried way suggested by the right hon. Member for Devizes. Many of us participated in the boundary redrawing procedures, which are time consuming. The idea that it is somehow possible to redraw the boundaries in time for 2002 is naive in the extreme.
  Equally, some of us—I mean this with the greatest respect to existing Members from Northern Ireland—take rather ill the suggestion that Scottish political representation in future Parliaments in this House will in any way be comparable to the band who have come from the north of Ireland in the past, not least when there was a Parliament in Stormont, because their politics were very different from the rest of the House. In many instances, a subscription to Unionism was seen to be a prejudice against Catholics. Circumstances have changed and the politics in that country are now endowed with at least a scintilla of optimism. We may well see a Parliament coming there.
  What is exciting about the Scottish Parliament—perhaps more so than the Welsh Assembly—is that we have had the long, grinding debates. We have had the period of cross-party discussion. We have had the setting aside of some of the old shibboleths. There is a possibility for new systems of government to emerge. We take it as an encouraging sign that it will not stop at Edinburgh or Cardiff—or wherever it will be in Wales—or Belfast if

  57
  there is to be an assembly there. All of us want peace and we recognise that that might be one of the paving stones to a settlement.
  Mr. Godman: As a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, I know that there is very keen interest in both communities concerning the Bill and the creation of a Parliament in Scotland. Despite some serious reservations that some constitutional nationalists have concerning the creation of an assembly in Northern Ireland, there is a growing willingness to examine the possibility of setting up such an assembly in Belfast.
  Mr. O'Neill: One can only hope that my hon. Friend's considerable knowledge and the information that he gives us will bear fruit, and that we shall see that. I should like to think that not only will it be taken up by the people of the north of Ireland but that it will be considered by the rest of England, and that we might well see a demand for assemblies across the United Kingdom. Travelling in Europe shows the suffocating character of constitutional and business life in the United Kingdom, where everything emanates from London, and London dominates.
  One does not get that feeling when travelling to Germany or to Italy—as I know you often do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and certainly not in Spain. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be more than happy to make available his itinerary, but I know that he is a good friend of the people of Italy. He knows only too well that, in Italy—perhaps more so in Spain, which has the example of Catalonia—there are different systems of regional government, which were developed to take account of the needs of a specific area. It is the pragmatism for which the British are supposed to be politically famed. We do not always get our constitutional arrangements correct, but when we do we can make them a great success.
  Initially, I was not very enthusiastic about the abandonment of first past the post, but I recognise that we shall carry all the people of Scotland with us, and avoid the sense of alienation that seemed, understandably, to be the preoccupation of the right hon. Member for Devizes, only if there is a Parliament in which everyone feels that there is place for them, in which they can do a job for Scotland. That example will be taken not only to Northern Ireland, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman), but across England as well.
  The sense of isolation that one comes across in, for example, Exeter and Plymouth, has found expression in the anxieties expressed by the people in the north of England over the alleged advantage that Wales and Scotland have, and the attraction of industry to the regions of England. Those concerns should be capable of being exposed, debated and discussed in the areas where the greatest impact is felt.
  The Bill is an opportunity not only for Scotland to breathe more freely once again but for the rest of the United Kingdom to have a chance to have a proper, open, accountable and modern democracy. I commend it to the House.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I intend to be supportive and helpful to the proposed legislation. I shall not go so far as climaxing my speech, as the hon. and
  58
  learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did, by quoting in support of my argument the Secretary of State's own political adviser, which was taking co-operation a bit far, but none the less I intend to be supportive of the Second Reading tonight.
  The Scottish National party will certainly vote against the Conservative party's amendment, for three reasons. First, we regard this Bill as a step in the right direction. It is good for Scotland. Secondly, the Scottish Parliament has been validated by the people of Scotland—the ultimate sovereignty—in a referendum campaign. Thirdly—the Secretary of State and I have agreed for some time on this point—the issue of independence will be determined by that ultimate constitutional authority, the people of Scotland, at the ballot box. That is clear.
  The Secretary of State once argued for this policy and described it as "independence within the United Kingdom", although he stopped doing that when one of his fellow shadow Cabinet Ministers denounced it during a by-election, not realising that it was a Labour party policy. Perhaps the Secretary of State will return to the term and describe this as independence within the United Kingdom. Such is the enthusiasm of the SNP for the new Parliament that all six SNP Members intend to seek election to that body.
  I cannot go back as far as Gladstone to quote historical precedent, but I can go back to 1945, when the first SNP Member of Parliament, Dr. Robert McIntyre, who was briefly the Member for Motherwell, made his maiden speech on the Education (Scotland) Bill. He said:
  "We come with the intention of returning as soon as possible to our own country, where we may, under democratic government, achieve the long-needed reconstruction of Scotland."—[Official Report, 1 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1299.]
  Admittedly, the time scale that has transpired was not quite what Dr. McIntyre had in mind at the time. As he is now in his mid-80s and newly elected honorary president of the SNP parliamentary group, I am sure that the House would like to wish him well. It is appropriate to quote his words in the Chamber this evening.
  The SNP argues enthusiastically for returning power to Scotland, and will seek to take its place in a Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: I shall give way in a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman might want to intervene when he hears what I have to say about the Tories in a few seconds.
  I looked at the Conservative amendment with puzzlement this evening. Like the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I found it difficult to understand how one could claim to accept the will of the people in a referendum and then argue for voting against it. It reminded me of a conversation that I had over the new year with a prominent Scottish Conservative whom I met during celebrations in Edinburgh. Perhaps I should not call him a prominent Scottish Conservative, as that narrows the field and might reveal his identity.
  That Scottish Conservative told me that the major difficulty with the revival—he should have said the resuscitation—of the Scottish Conservative party is the English Conservative party, and added that, every time he heard and saw comments about the constitutional process in this House, he grimaced as he realised the electoral

  59
  damage being done by his English colleagues to the Conservative party's prospects in the new Parliament. He had in mind episodes like that reported in The Herald on 13 December 1997. Headlined "U-turn on Home Rule from Tory", it began:
  "A Tory image-change promising a new, positive attitude to a Scottish parliament went spectacularly off-message yesterday when constitutional affairs spokesman Bernard Jenkin surprised an Edinburgh conference with a lengthy harangue against Home Rule."
  It was a surprise because, the previous day, it had been leaked to The Scotsman that there was to be a damascene conversion in which the Tory Front-Bench spokesman would announce a conversion to home rule. He then arrived at the conference and ended up denouncing it. It is, admittedly, one way to get two headlines in different newspapers on consecutive days, but it is the sort of thing that made the prominent Scottish Conservative "grimace" as he realised the damage being done, even now, to Conservative prospects in Scotland.
  With great respect to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), elements of his speech this afternoon reflected the fact that the Conservative party has by no means adjusted to the reality of the new Scottish dimension to politics, and I am certain that his speech will have done even more damage to his party.
  I shall restrict myself this evening to making three general points about the nature of the Bill, and to signalling three specific areas where the SNP believes that it can be improved. We shall table amendments to try to achieve that noble purpose.
  First, on matters of principle, one issue that was spectacularly wrong in the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes was his description of clause 27(7) as a meek and modest affirmation of Westminster's supremacy. The clause, which is about reserved powers, reads:
  "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
  That means that, despite the fact that everything beyond that clause has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament retains the right—indeed, according to the clause, it is not affected in terms of its right—to undo what the Scottish Parliament has decided to do or enact.
  Far from being a timid clause, it is a sweeping affirmation. It is the legislative form of the oft-quoted phrase, "Sovereignty resides with me as an English MP, and that's the way it will stay." It is extraordinary, in a Bill on devolution, to have a clause that argues that the UK Parliament's power over devolved matters is not affected by the legislation. If we added the words "not affected on reserved matters", the formulation would be more acceptable for people in Scotland, even though the right hon. Member for Devizes may find it alarming. Far from being a devolution clause, it strikes against the principle of trusting a Parliament to enact legislation wisely.
  Secondly, I am concerned about the principle of concordats and agreements that are sprouting forth. The Secretary of State described them as non-statutory agreements. There will certainly have to be agreements between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments—between the Scottish Executive and Westminster Ministers—on the conduct of business and shared
  60
  concerns. What concerns me is whether it is competent and proper for those understandings and concordats to be put in place before one of the parties to them has come into existence.
  The Secretary of State is wise, and he is no doubt doing his best in the interests of the new Scottish Parliament. However, will he confirm that it will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether the concordats that he is drawing up on a range of matters with his United Kingdom colleagues are acceptable to the Scottish Executive and Parliament?
  One indication that we should be suspicious of the process comes in a leaked letter dated 18 December from one of the Secretary of State's own civil servants, which describes the concordat on agriculture and fisheries. It says:
  "From the MAFF perspective the concordat is a chance to emphasise their lead UK role and to keep tabs on action by the Scottish Executive."
  That civil service memorandum advising the Secretary of State tells us that, while the Secretary of State is batting for Scotland and his civil servants are trying to get the best out of the concordats and agreements that are being drawn up, United Kingdom Departments may have a different aim in mind, and may be trying to "keep tabs" on any putative Scottish Executive.
  Mr. Hogg: I reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman makes—[Interruption.] He seems alarmed by that prospect. I none the less put it to him that the concordat is in any event only good for the existing regime. Any subsequent change in the character of the Government or the Scottish Parliament would require a change in the concordat, which is good only for the four or five years in which both parties overlap.
  Mr. Salmond: I feel like someone in a battle sending out the message, "Reinforcements arrived and weakened our position." However, that is only guilt by association.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: a concordat is only good while the parties overlap. However, once a concordat is signed, it can be changed only by agreement of both parties. That seems to be a common feature, so it is of less concern to me than the fact that, if an agreement is reached before one party to it has even come into existence, the agreement cannot by definition be a concordat—it is more like a diktat.
  Will the Secretary of State assure me that the concordats will be binding on the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament only if they choose to endorse them when they come into being? I do not mind the preparatory work being done, but the Government should not presume too much about the agreement of the Scottish Executive.
  Mr. Godman: I would regard it as a great honour to be given executive responsibility in a Scottish Parliament for the Scottish fishing industry, but I hope that the person who is given that role will participate in meetings of the Fisheries Council in Brussels. I believe that it is up to the United Kingdom delegation to decide who participates in Council meetings. On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's comments about a concordat, I would expect there to be

  61
  tough-minded negotiations about such participation, but I would want the person responsible to take part in such meetings in Brussels.
  Mr. Salmond: My difficulty is with what is honourably and honestly in the civil service memorandum. The civil servant makes it clear that, from the perspective of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department should maintain its lead role in European negotiations. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) is absolutely correct. It is important to define the Scottish Parliament's European role. It should not be subject to the whim of future Governments who may sometimes be hostile.
  My final general point is about the schedules. I accept the Secretary of State's wisdom in choosing to define reserved matters and to leave all other matters to the competence of the Scottish Parliament. That is different from the 1970s legislation, and is an improvement and enhancement: it is a far better process. None the less, schedule 5 contains a very lengthy list of reserved matters. It does not deal, as was suggested by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, only with the towering heights of defence matters, foreign affairs or even social security.
  The list of reserved powers in the section headed "Entertainment" includes the Hypnotism Act 1952, the Theatres Act 1968, the Cinemas Act 1985 and the Video Recordings Act 1984. The schedule contains far too many reserved powers. Would the central integrity of the United Kingdom have been damaged if the Scottish Parliament had been given competence to license cinemas and theatres, and had been trusted with earth-shattering matters such as the Hypnotism Act 1952 and its regulation? We shall consider this issue as the Bill goes through the House.
  Those were my three general points, and I now want to consider ways of beefing up this proposal. It could be argued that more has been promised in the past than is being offered in this legislation. In the run-up to the 1997 election, much of the political debate in Scotland was dominated by the term "tartan tax", which was used by the previous Secretary of State for Scotland. I was asked why that had emerged as such a major issue, at least in the minds of the Secretary of State and the Scottish press, given that it had not been mentioned to anything like the same extent in the 1992 election, when the current Secretary of State for Scotland was the shadow Secretary of State. There were a number of reasons, the most important of which was that the financial powers proposed in 1992 were stronger than those suggested in the 1997 devolution proposal.
  In 1992, the Secretary of State argued for assigned revenues in additional to the tax-varying power. It was suggested that there should be a broader base of taxation on which the Scottish Parliament could draw. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I am merely referring to the arguments that he used back in 1992. There is no doubt that he argued for assigned revenues in addition to a tax-varying power. Liberal Democrat Members are nodding their agreement: they remember that, even if the Secretary of State does not. I think that that was a stronger proposal.
  The position that we have been left in now is that if the tax-varying power—the tartan tax—is used to its fullest extent, the Scottish Parliament will have control over
  62
  about 3 per cent. of its total revenue capability, and 97 per cent. will come from the Westminster Exchequer. Devolved Parliaments around the world have more: for instance, the Basque Parliament or the Canadian provinces have about 40 per cent. control of their revenues.
  The Secretary of State says that the Barnett formula is secure: he tried to entice the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to agree with him, and he received a less than full response. But that is not the position. We have just had a report of the Treasury Select Committee. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was alone in opposing a frontal attack on the Barnett formula, which was supported by both Labour and Conservative Back-Bench Members. Does the Secretary of State propose a stronger, enlarged fiscal base for a Scottish Parliament? The Secretary of State has defended the fiscal arrangement, but it is under attack from Labour and Conservative Members. We will be looking for proposals to strengthen the fiscal position as the Bill goes through the House.
  The issue of broadcasting will be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), if she is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The White Paper referred to broadcasting organisations as an example of cross-border public bodies that could give evidence to a Scottish Parliament, which would have a role in providing public accountability. It is not about control of broadcasting, but about whether there will be any democratic accountability to a Scottish Parliament for broadcasting in Scotland. Paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper suggested clearly that there could be such accountability. The Bill makes no mention of a broadcasting organisation as a cross-border body.
  Incredible as it may seem, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the British Broadcasting Corporation may, at some time in the future, decide to broadcast in Scotland an interview with the United Kingdom Prime Minister in the middle of a Scottish election campaign. Political parties in Scotland may want to take legal action to prevent that broadcast. A Scottish Parliament may want to summon the director general of the BBC to give evidence to an appropriate Committee, and may want to ask relevant questions in the Scottish public interest.
  Mr. Connarty: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have taken part in debates in public and on television with George Kerevan of the Scottish National party. It was clearly stated that that could happen, and that was accepted by his party's spokesman. Is he a vice-chairman on broadcasting? Everyone in his party is a vice-chairman, because it is so small. He accepted that the BBC could be called to a Committee of a Scottish Parliament and questioned on its proposals.
  Mr. Salmond: I am delighted to have such assurances from the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). The Secretary of State has hurriedly consulted his civil servants, and I am sure we will be told that the White Paper specifies broadcasting organisations as an example of cross-border bodies that could give evidence to the Scottish Parliament. However, that has been omitted from the relevant sections of the Bill.
  I will be delighted if that omission is shown to be merely an oversight. There has been some dispute in Scotland about whether the Secretary of State for Culture,

  63
  Media and Sport or the Minister of State at the Scottish Office is the key figure opposed to any democratic accountability to a Scottish Parliament for broadcasting. If this is an oversight, no doubt any reasonable amendments that we may table will be treated sympathetically by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He shakes his head, thus removing that possibility. This is an important issue, and it is valid to ask why broadcasting, which appeared in the White Paper, is not specified in the Bill.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to interrupt, and I do not want to have a long discussion on this matter, because we shall return to it. The position is exactly as is stated in the White Paper.
  Mr. Salmond: If the Secretary of State is saying that the Bill, from which broadcasting is omitted, is the same as the White Paper, which lists broadcasting, I take it that at some point he will accept an amendment to include broadcasting. It is in the White Paper, but not in the Bill. We may reach agreement in Committee, but that is to anticipate the Bill being passed on Second Reading.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like a little support from me. The precedent of the 1979 case of Wilson, Dalyell and Birt v. the Independent Broadcasting Authority before Lord Ross shows that the hon. Gentleman is right. The "Wilson" was my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds the House of the long track record in these matters of the Minister for Education and Industry, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). As I remember it, that legal action prohibited party political broadcasting during the devolution referendum campaign. I read in today's newspapers that the BBC and the Independent Television Commission want to do away with party political broadcasts altogether—perhaps that will be the subject of some discussion later on.
  There is, in any case, a clear difference between what was in the White Paper and what is in the Bill. [Interruption.] It is no use the Secretary of State waving the White Paper at me; there is no disagreement about what it contains. I repeat: such a provision is not in the Bill, although perhaps it should be.
  Finally, I want to deal with Europe. There is a strong case for enshrining the Scottish Parliament's rights of access to European decision making in the Bill. The Conservative party is in no position to argue that the measure will weaken Scotland's position, given the miserable attendance rate of Scottish Office Ministers at European Council meetings over the past five years. When we last debated this subject, I asked a Conservative party spokesperson what the record was. He did not know or could not remember, so I shall read the figures to the House.
  In 1992, out of 125 meetings of the Council of Ministers, Scottish Office Ministers attended eight. In 1993, the figure was eight out of 125. In 1994, things got worse: six out of 125. In 1995, they attended seven out of
  64
  83 meetings. In 1996, when there was a plethora of meetings to do with Bovine spongiform encephalopathy and fisheries issues, they increased their attendance to 15 out of 84 Council meetings. Overall, Scottish Office Ministers went to fewer than 10 per cent. of Council of Ministers meetings.
  It would be extremely helpful if Scotland's rights of access to these meetings were consolidated in the Bill—
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman criticises the number of attendances, but on those occasions Scottish Office Ministers attended as of right. Under these proposals, Scottish Executive Ministers will have no rights at all.
  Mr. Salmond: Scottish Office Ministers attended by permission of their Cabinet colleagues. I remember one celebrated occasion when the former Secretary of State for Scotland announced in the press that he was going to Brussels to battle for Scotland's fishing industry. I later found out from officials that he had not opened his mouth during the entire meeting, because the then Minister of Agriculture was leading for the UK on that occasion.
  I happen to believe that Scotland's position cannot get worse than it was over the past five years. I nevertheless urge the Secretary of State to recall that we were promised during the preliminary arguments that Scotland would lead the United Kingdom's delegations at the Council of Ministers on various matters—one of which might be fishing. On any measurement—value of catches, tonnes of fish landed, numbers of boats—Scotland's fishing industry is bigger than that of the rest of the UK put together. The Scottish Office already has the lead responsibility for forestry, since most forestry acreage is in Scotland. Perhaps forestry, too, should be an area of lead responsibility for Scotland.
  Would it not be better to attempt to consolidate our European position on the face of the Bill, in line with what the Foreign Secretary told the Scottish Grand Committee on 13 January last year? Labour, he said, would
  "confer on Scottish Ministers the same observer status as that of the German Lander at appropriate meetings".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 13 January 1997; c. 29.]
  It may be true that the current group of Ministers can reach amicable arrangements to allow Scottish interests to be represented at Council of Ministers meetings, but the Secretary of State cannot commit his colleagues for the future; and he certainly cannot commit any future Government unless something is written into this statute to guarantee Scotland's position in European matters. Without it, that position stands in some jeopardy—hence the need for improvement by amendment as the Bill goes through Parliament.
  As I said at the outset, we intend to give the legislation a friendly response. We shall be positive and constructive as it moves through the House. We believe that on balance it is good for Scotland. A Scottish Parliament after an interval of 300 years was resoundingly voted for in the referendum.
  We regard this not as an event—a once-and-for-all transfer—but as part of a process of democratic awakening in the nation of Scotland. The end result of that process will be determined by the people of our nation.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I congratulate the Secretary of State, other Ministers and all involved on their speed in bringing the Bill to Second

  65
  Reading. It is important to look at it in detail, and I intend to concentrate on two areas that I see as important: first, the creation of jobs, especially in the public sector; and secondly, transport issues.
  The county of Ayrshire has been somewhat forgotten during the past few years. Just before the new year, the BBC, in its round-up of Scottish affairs, mentioned virtually every town and city in Scotland but not a single town in Ayrshire. That is indicative of Scottish politics at the moment, a clear sign of the need for more devolution in Scotland.
  We are told that the Scottish Parliament must generate new ideas and must be seen to be different. The Government say in their White Paper that it is right to decentralise power. That is why consideration must be given to decentralising civil servants, of whom there are about 12,000 mainly based in Edinburgh. They must be encouraged to resettle across Scotland.
  Ayrshire has been sadly lacking in public sector jobs. Indeed, the most recent report on Ayrshire's economy, instigated by the Ayrshire economic forum, speaks of the possible loss of 9,000 jobs in the area in coming years. That clearly shows the need to decentralise civil servants' jobs to places such as Ayrshire. Other parts of the west of Scotland, and indeed the rest of Scotland, would also benefit from such decentralisation. Over the years, many Governments have tried to make moves in that direction, but as yet very few Scottish Office civil servants have relocated around Scotland. The Bill represents an opportunity that we must not fail to take.
  As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out, schedule 5 gives rise to some reservations. He mentioned the Hypnotism Act 1952. I note also that schedule 5 states that money laundering is not to be considered by the Scottish Parliament; nor is intellectual property, whatever that is. It will be reserved to Westminster. Piracy cannot be discussed by the Scottish Parliament either; nor can the date of Easter. The regulation of activities in outer space is to be reserved to Westminster—although perhaps that is just as well.
  The White Paper promised for the Scottish Executive an oversight role in respect of all Scottish rail passenger services. In terms of transport, that was a good start to the legislation. However, the Bill reserves most matters in relation to the provision and regulation of railway services to the Westminster Parliament. I am interested in transport matters, and that is of some concern.
  The definition of railway services that is used in the Bill is based on section 82 of the Railways Act 1993. I am a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and we spent a great deal of time examining the clause which later became that section. These matters extend to the provision of important facilities such as stations and network services and the carriage of passengers and freight.
  The Scottish Parliament and the Executive will oversee road and ferry transport in Scotland and many aspects of internal air transport, all of which we welcome. However, they will have no control over air traffic control, which is causing deep concern in Ayrshire. Rail services are to be excluded from the Scottish Parliament's competence, and that strikes at the concept of an integrated transport policy for Scotland. By contrast, the provision of railway services in Northern Ireland remains administratively devolved, in common with other aspects of transport
  66
  provision there. As more than 90 per cent. of ScotRail's journeys are internal and the Scottish and English rail networks connect only at Berwick and Gretna, it is important to consider the whole question of an integrated transport network in Scotland.
  Strathclyde passenger transport authority's responsibilities for rail services are to be granted under transport and railways Acts and will relate to reserved matters. All other such responsibilities will fall on the Scottish Parliament. Local integration may become more difficult because of the need to deal with two policy-making bodies. The passenger transport authority will be a creature of the Scottish Parliament, and its railway responsibilities, which now account for more than 87 per cent. of its net expenditure, will relate to reserved matters. Presumably, it will ultimately draw that part of its funding from the new Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions rather than from the Scottish Office as at present. That is a recipe for financial and administrative tension. If the Scottish Parliament is precluded from dealing with matters relating to the rail network and stations, it will, of course, be unable to legislate on those matters. The promotion of private legislation in Scotland to permit the building of new lines will remain a Westminster matter, and that is quite unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is merely arguing that certain matters are reserved to this Parliament and that it will be consistently argued that that is bad? Does he further agree that this is the first shot in an argument that will last while the Scottish Parliament exists and that ever more potent arguments will be advanced in this House or in Scotland that these matters must be debated in Edinburgh? In that lies the root of the disaster that will befall this nation of ours.
  Mr. Donohoe: I do not accept that. I am trying to identify a possible problem, so that the Bill can be amended. An integrated transport policy is at the centre of the Government's thinking, and we can look at the issue and address it before the Bill becomes an Act.
  Mr. Connarty: Does my hon. Friend agree that on reserved matters such as the one he illustrates that are alien to one side, in co-operation with the Scottish Parliament, Ministers with responsibility for the reserved matters would, on invitation, willingly discuss them with a Committee of the Scottish Parliament? That would obviate the need to move away from reserved powers. Surely there can be co-operation between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. There is no need to reduce the list of reservations and anticipate problems: we should think of a way to discuss matters positively, in co-operation and not in conflict.
  Mr. Donohoe: My hon. Friend is right, and he has partly addressed the matters that were mentioned by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
  Much work has been done at a rate of knots, and we have an opportunity to look at the legislation in greater detail. I have a passionate interest in transport, and such examination could greatly improve transport policy throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom. I hope that the matters that I mentioned will be dealt with in Committee and that the Bill will be enhanced, to enable the working of an integrated transport policy throughout the United Kingdom.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. David Davis: It is clear that the Bill's passage is guaranteed. That means that it is incumbent on us to do what we can to ensure that it is as well formed as possible. Those hon. Members who do not want the Bill to be the first step towards the dissolution of the United Kingdom, but who want the Union to be strengthened, will want to ensure that the Bill delivers the best possible government for Scotland, while maintaining the most harmonious and effective relationship—I think that the Secretary of State said "friction-free" relationship—between the Parliament of Scotland and that of the United Kingdom. With that in mind, I should like to raise an issue of constitutional significance, albeit in the Bill it is buried in technicalities. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has my entire admiration for finding a reading of the legislation entertaining. I am sure that reading it will remain a minority sport.
  I should like to deal with the oversight and scrutiny of Scotland's financial affairs and those of the United Kingdom after the Bill becomes law. The control of the nation's finances has featured as a central part of constitutional debates and disputes, from Magna Carta to the Parliament Act 1911, and it should not be a surprise that the issue is the central feature of the Bill.
  Clause 61(2) specifies that the United Kingdom Parliament will provide a grant to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. It does not require the Scottish Parliament or the Executive to submit to the United Kingdom Parliament any information about the intended use of that money or about the eventual outturn. The information and detailed analysis of plans and expenditure that are currently available to the House will no longer be guaranteed by statute. Neither is there a requirement for the designation of individual accounting officers who would be held responsible for the expenditure. The arrangements for audit and scrutiny that are specified in clause 66 are extremely loose and depend entirely upon the Scottish Parliament both wanting and achieving as rigorous an oversight as that of the United Kingdom Parliament. Unfortunately, the UK Parliament will not be able to assess whether the Scottish Parliament's arrangements are effective. Parliament's ability to do that has been specifically disabled by the Bill.
  Mr. Salmond: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that unless there is some sort of financial oversight, the Scottish Parliament might do something insane and ludicrous such as spending almost £1,000 million on some sort of millennium dome on the River Forth? Is that the sort of ridiculous act that a Scottish Parliament might commit if it were not subject to the great scrutiny of the Westminster Parliament?
  Mr. Davis: It is always possible that not just Scottish Labour Members will go to the Scottish Parliament. However, I do not propose to judge that.
  The point that I want to make is that, on page 85, schedule 7 says:
  "Sections 6 and 7 of the National Audit Act 1983 (value for money studies) shall not apply in relation to—
  68
  (a) the Scottish Administration or any part of it".
  The schedule removes powers from the UK auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General. Specifically, it denies him access to papers and information about the expenditure of some £14 billion, on the estimate of the Secretary of State for Scotland, of UK taxpayers' money. In conjunction with clauses 61 to 68, that will severely undermine the ability of this UK Parliament to scrutinise and to control public expenditure as it applies to Scotland.
  That amounts to an extraordinary, possibly accidental, constitutional innovation. It removes the rights of detailed scrutiny from where they properly belong—with those who raise the taxes—and transfers them to those who spend the money. That would be appropriate if the Scottish Parliament set and raised its own taxes. Clearly, that is not the case, although I know that the Scottish National party proposes it. The Scottish Parliament's tax-varying powers amount to less than £500 million, a small fraction of the total spend.
  The Bill's approach might be just tolerable if Scottish taxes were hypothecated for use in Scotland and English and Welsh taxes were hypothecated for use in England and Wales, but that is clearly not the case. At today's spending levels, the grant that the UK Parliament will allocate to the Scottish Consolidated Fund will be some £14 billion. That grant is UK taxpayers' money, for which we are properly accountable to the UK taxpayer.
  The UK taxpayer spends in Scotland significantly more than is raised from Scotland in taxes. The exact size of the net subvention from the rest of the UK to Scotland is a matter of dispute, but it is not small. The House of Commons Library assessed it at £6 billion in 1994–95 and some £4.85 billion in 1995–96. That is after allowing for all North sea oil revenues. The lowest plausible figure that I can find—and it is not the Scottish National party figure—is £2 billion per annum. In other words, the subsidy to Scotland amounts to between £400 and £1,200 per person per year.
  Mr. Swinney: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that the figures that he quoted from the House of Commons Library do not assume any share of UK debt, which would be carried by Scottish taxpayers for any particular year, so to quote a figure such as £6 billion and not to add that substantial caveat—bearing it in mind that, in certain years, the public sector debt has been as high as £48 billion under Conservative Governments—is not exactly the whole story.
  Mr. Davis: After the Scottish National party's budget was trashed wholesale by the Fraser of Allander Institute in Scotland, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman even dared to ask the question, but that is precisely why I gave the range from £6 billion to £2 billion. Of course, different issues should be considered. One is the amount of North sea oil revenue that goes in. His party would claim that virtually all of it—well, 90 per cent.—goes in. Others would say that the figure is two thirds. Of course, there is the issue of the level of debt that is allocated, but what is clear is that spending in Scotland is significantly higher than the amount that is raised in taxes, and that will not change materially in the next few years.
  Mr. Swinney rose—
  Mr. Davis: I shall press on, because I have other points to make.

  69
  For the time being, the amount payable to the Scottish Parliament is subject to the Barnett formula, and that may be appropriate. That will be for the House and the Government of the day to decide. What is clear, however, is that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Administration will spend UK taxpayers' money, and without the stronger controls and guidelines that the Bill requires, the UK Parliament will make the decision blind.
  Ironically, the weakness of the Bill's financial controls is demonstrated by one clause in particular. On page 41, clause 90 says:
  "The Treasury may require the Scottish Ministers to provide, within such period as the Treasury may reasonably specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may reasonably specify."
  In English, that means that the Treasury does not think that enough financial information is guaranteed in the Bill. In effect, the clause states explicitly that the necessary information will be made available to the Executive of the UK, but not to Parliament. If the Treasury needs the information, so does Parliament.
  The UK taxpayer has a right to expect his representatives—the House of Commons—to be able properly to scrutinise that expenditure before approving the grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Proper scrutiny is possible only if we have the ability to make judgments about the value obtained for taxpayers' money. Proper scrutiny is possible only if we are able to be sure that taxpayers' money is properly spent—on domes or other things. Proper scrutiny is possible only if we maintain the rights that the Bill seeks to remove.
  Mr. Wallace: I am following with interest what the right hon. Gentleman says. I agree that the Scottish Parliament must have the equivalent of the National Audit Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General and indeed a Public Accounts Committee, which will be matters for the Scottish Parliament, but what is the right hon. Gentleman driving at? Is he saying that Westminster should have oversight of the Scottish Parliament's expenditure, possibly through the Committee that he chairs? How would that lead, in practice, to the smooth relationship that one would expect? Does he not think that that would add to the friction, against which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) warned?
  Mr. Davis: Two arguments apply. One is that the £14 billion is raised as UK taxpayers' money, and the House must be able to convince itself and its voters that it has spent that money properly. Later in my speech, I shall explain precisely how I think that can happen and how it would tie together with what the Scottish Parliament wants to do.
  The Bill speaks of the appointment of independent auditors for the Scottish Parliament. The definition is extremely weak. Independence is extraordinarily difficult to deliver, as the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland will know. He knows how Executives use every influence available to them. That is so important that, in the UK, we underpin that independence—in relation to the provision of audit, for example—with statutory provisions covering independent appointment, operational independence, security of tenure of the auditor, availability of resources, which are guaranteed, independent access and independent reporting.
  70
  None of that is specified in the Bill for the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, the Bill is full of hazards. From the UK Parliament's perspective, it will engender frustration and distrust, but from the perspective even of a Scottish Parliament, it is unsatisfactory.
  Let me give the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland what I stress is a hypothetical example. Imagine that the current level of financial settlements continues, but under the new proposals. Scotland continues to prosper, perhaps more so than other parts of the UK. Suppose that we then have a rash of press stories about waste or corruption in the Scottish Administration. That fires up new demands from other parts of the UK to reduce the grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
  The position of the Scottish Parliament then becomes extremely invidious. It either turns a blind eye to issues of corruption, which I am sure it will not want to do, or it investigates them and creates ammunition for those who would reduce Scotland's grant. Throughout all that, we in this House, who are responsible for the £14 billion grant, would be precluded from investigating the matter.
  There are other circumstances in which such confusion of purpose can arise, but I shall raise those matters in Committee. The point of principle is paramount. A total of £14 billion, the Secretary of State's figure, of UK taxpayers' money should be subject to full and proper scrutiny by this House, and proper scrutiny demands access by the House's auditor. I reiterate: those who raise the taxes should have the right of scrutiny. Those who spend the money have a real but different interest. I know that local authorities are constitutionally different, but they are in a similar financial position. We do not allow the councils in Doncaster, Hull, Paisley or, indeed, Westminster to pick an example that will appeal to the Government, to set their own audit arrangements.
  What makes the proposed arrangement astounding is the fact that, although the UK Parliament's auditor cannot follow UK taxpayers' money when that is spent by the Scottish Administration, the European Union's auditor can follow European money. Bluntly, it is an outrageous and extraordinary concept that the European Union should have better scrutiny rights inside the United Kingdom than the UK Parliament has.
  I understand and accept—and this point was specifically raised by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland—that the Scottish Parliament will want its own scrutiny arrangements. I also understand and accept that it would be clumsy and expensive to duplicate those arrangements. However, UK taxpayers have their rights, so the Government should introduce six amendments to the Bill that would enhance, rather than curtail, the powers of the Scottish Parliament, while allowing this House to represent the interests of UK taxpayers with confidence.
  First, the Bill should require the Scottish Parliament or Executive to submit detailed expenditure plans to the Secretary of State, which he should lay before this Parliament before the debate and vote on the Scottish Consolidated Fund grant. That would be a straightforward point of information. Such a provision is not in the Bill, but it is in the Government of Wales Bill. Secondly, the Bill should specify the meaning of "proper accounts", which the Scottish Executive is expected to prepare, probably by requiring the Treasury to continue to direct the form of accounts and underpin accounting rules. That provision is also contained in the Welsh Bill.

  71
  Thirdly, the Bill should require the Scottish Executive to designate accounting officers with responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament similar to those of UK accounting officers to this Parliament's Public Accounts Committee. Fourthly, the Bill should specify the details guaranteeing the independence from the Executive of the audit and scrutiny arrangements in the Scottish Parliament, similar to those that apply in this Parliament.
  Fifthly, the Bill should preserve the Comptroller and Auditor General's access rights to report to the House of Commons on the adequacy of arrangements for managing and auditing the Scottish Consolidated Fund and on the value for money achieved, and allow him access to the Scottish Parliament's auditors, as happens with the Audit Commission with universities and many other independent structures.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davis: No, I am coming to the end of my speech.
  Finally, the Bill should require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the Scottish Parliament has satisfactory scrutiny and audit arrangements in place. It should give him the right to withhold payments if he does not believe specifically that those proper scrutiny and audit arrangements are in place.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Davis: No, I am coming to my last few words.
  I have raised a number of issues in a constructive manner and I have made a number of constructive proposals, which I want the Minister to think about and then give his response. None of what I have proposed will constrain the Scottish Parliament in its proper duties. Much of it will reinforce it and increase its standing in the eyes of both the Scottish taxpayer and the United Kingdom taxpayer.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: This is an excellent Bill and all those who have laboured hard and long to produce it are to be congratulated. It translates the will of the Scottish people into legislative form in an excellent and constructive way. It will be thoroughly supported by the vast majority of people in my country of Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should speedily claim some of the credit for the Bill before history is rewritten and it is all attributed to some at present anonymous spin doctor. Otherwise, in years to come we might be told that those who are presenting the Bill today had nothing to do with it. If my right hon. Friend successfully pilots the Bill through Parliament, he should go down in history as one of the great Scots of our time. I can imagine a time, in years to come, when
  72
  children will learn about the great men of the past—Robert the Bruce, Mel Gibson and Donald Dewar. They will be the Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky of Scotland.
  Mr. John McAllion: Donald Trotsky?
  Mr. Davidson: Thinking of my right hon. Friend as the Trotsky of our time stretches the imagination perhaps, but I believe that he will hold the same place in history.
  Mr. McAllion: Robert the Bruce or Trotsky?
  Mr. Davidson: Well, Bruce did smash a few bosses' systems in his time. [Interruption.] I say to fellow members of the DD fan club that that is enough obsequiousness; I want to make some constructive criticism.
  The chosen location for the Scottish Parliament is wrong—it should not be in Edinburgh. It is a triumph for the Edinburgh and Scottish establishment that we will come to regret. However, the decision has been made. It would be appropriate for the leadership of Scotland's Government to make an early commitment to avoid centralisation in Edinburgh of all the Parliament's functions. A policy of dispersal would be more appropriate, otherwise Edinburgh will be seen to have gained a fur coat and, at the same time, a complete set of warm underclothing.
  Over the years, there have been constant calls from the Liberal Democrats and others for a fair voting system. I agree that we should have a fairer voting system than that proposed in the Bill. There should be equal votes of equal value. It will be a test of other parties, especially the Liberal Democrats, to see whether they have been driven by the principle of fairness or by self-interest.
  How can it be fair for Orkney, with an electorate of 15,500, to have one Member of the Scottish Parliament and for Shetland, with 17,500, to have one Member, when other, much larger, constituencies will also have only one Member? Perhaps it is a scheme to preserve the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for the nation. I understand that some people might consider that a desirable objective—[Interruption.] Opinion is divided. Whatever its merits, the system cannot be said to be fair. If we add to Orkney and Shetland the Western Isles, those three constituencies have some 55,000 voters—about the same number as many individual constituencies.
  I recognise that there are difficulties for Members in servicing far-flung and rural constituencies, but that could be overcome by additional staff. It does not necessarily follow that just because a population is dispersed it should have a disproportionately large say at the centre.
  If Orkney and Shetland are to be split, why not Airdrie and Shotts; Argyl and Bute; Banff and Buchan; Clydebank and Milngavie; Coatbridge and Chryston; Cumbernauld and Kilsyth; east Edinburgh and Musselburgh; north Edinburgh and Leith; Galloway and upper Nithsdale; Greenock and Inverclyde; north Hamilton and Bellshill; Kilmarnock and Loudoun; Motherwell and Wishaw; Roxburgh and Berwickshire; Strathkelvin and Bearsden; and west Aberdeenshire and Kincardine? In fact, it would be possible to divide into three Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale; Ross, Skye and Inverness; east Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber; and Caithness, Sutherland and Easter

  73
  Ross. What about Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley? The interesting point is that there will be more than four times as many voters in that constituency as there will in Orkney, yet they will be equally represented with one MSP.
  Whatever the merits of the system, we cannot pretend that it is fair. It could be said that one George Foulkes is equivalent to four Jim Wallaces—and some people might want to make that point. "There is only one George Foulkes," as they often sing at Tynecastle. "Amen to that," we all say here.
  Whatever else can be said about the proposed system, it is not fair. There is no reason why my constituency also should not be divided into three, giving us the "Po", the "Lo" and the "Ok"—a much better system than that which is being proposed.
  The voting system that has been selected will provide two types of Member: those who will be elected on a first-past-the-post basis and who will be elected first—for ease of reference, let us call them the first-class Members; and the others on the regional list, who will be elected second, whom we shall call the second-class Members.
  Second-class Members will have no identifiable constituents—a status which possibly possesses the merit of resulting in no housing cases. Those Members will either feel that they have a specific constituency burden or simply intervene as and when they see fit wherever they like, across an entire European constituency.
  The proposals clearly will give regional list Members an opportunity to freeload on the back of the constituency work done by individual constituency Members. I am not clear whether, because of their lesser responsibilities, regional list members will be paid less, but that matter will have to be examined.
  Mr. Godman: Is my hon. Friend advocating the first-past-the-post system for the proposed Parliament? If he is, will he concede that his view is very much a minority one within the parliamentary Labour party?
  Mr. Davidson: I have not yet reached the point of saying what I am in favour of, although I shall shortly. Currently, I am offering constructive criticism; we have not yet reached the very constructive bit.
  There will be an opportunity for freeloading among the free-floating Members, who will be able to intervene mischievously in any other Member's constituency, without any responsibility. We can imagine what will happen over a matter such as a school closure, for example, when a local Member is wrestling with the potential difficulties. An outside Member with no real responsibility in the area could be as mischievous and partisan as he or she liked and then walk away; the constituency Member would be left to pick up the pieces.
  I am not clear whether there are proposals for protocols, as we have in the House, governing the way in which hon. Members intervene in one another's constituency, or whether the matter will be developed further. As the proposals contain a recipe for conflict, the matter will have to be dealt with during the Bill's passage.
  I might be wrong. Constituency MSPs may become bogged down in constituency matters and in individual cases; regional Members would then reign supreme in policy and become the first-class Members, relegating the others to second-class status. We can estimate the
  74
  probable relative status of the Members by considering the announced plans of the leaders of the political parties. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party plan for their current Members of Parliament to stand for Scottish Parliament first-past-the-post constituencies, clearly indicating where they believe real power and influence lies. Those plans indicate also the way in which a system comprising first and second-class Members will emerge.
  I am concerned about the operation of a second ballot, because it seems that, ultimately, many votes will be wasted. If a party polls sufficient votes in the first ballot to win all the first-past-the-post seats, it may find that it wins no seats in the second ballot. The document produced by the Library shows that in the West of Scotland European constituency, for example, Labour would win nine seats on a first-past-the-post basis and consequently win none on a second ballot. Therefore, the votes of everyone who votes Labour in the second ballot—the largest single electoral bloc—will be entirely wasted. That would not be a fair system. If we must have some proportionality, it would be much more reasonable for the second ballot to be self-contained and not to be dependent on or judged by the results of the first ballot.
  A third aspect of inequality in the system is the way in which seats will be distributed between European constituencies in the second ballot. In the second ballot, each constituency will receive seven seats. However, is it fair that the highlands and islands—with 327,000 electors, based on the Library's figures—should receive the same number of seats as central Scotland, which will have 552,000 electors?
  There are substantial arguments in favour of the proposals. However, the proposals are not fair or reasonable and they contain a clear bias against my part of the country specifically and against the central belt of Scotland generally.
  The difficulty of having two types of Member is primarily one of accountability. First-class Members will be accountable for their selection and election to real people, whereas there is some doubt about exactly to whom second-class Members will be accountable. Second-class Members' fate will not be in their own hands.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is describing a situation that he regards as unfair—too many Members in Scotland. Is not that unfairness demonstrated by the figures from his own constituency? He represents 49,284 electors, whereas the average number of electors per constituency in the United Kingdom is about 66,000. Does he think that it is acceptable that there should be so many hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies and that Scottish constituencies are so small?
  Mr. Davidson: The current system is entirely acceptable because it is the product of a long historical process of negotiation and of coming together: a balance has been struck over time. Conversely, in Scotland, we are currently starting afresh on a clean sheet of paper. Were we starting afresh in the United Kingdom, we might not come to where we are now, but that is not the position. We are where we are in Britain, and we are moving forward to a new system in Scotland.
  Mr. Salmond: There has just been a boundary revision. As the hon. Gentleman may know, in population terms,

  75
  my constituency is much bigger than his. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman appearing before the boundary commission at the previous revision and saying, "It is very unfair that Banff and Buchan has such a large electorate and that my constituency in Glasgow has such a small one." Is the matter something that he has thought of only recently and did not want to think of previously?
  Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is entirely correct. I did not appear in front of the boundary commission complaining about the balance between his constituency and mine because I realised that factors other than numerical equality should be taken into consideration. I would not argue for exact geographical and numerical equality.
  Let us not pretend, however, that our proposed system is fair. There are some aspects of inequality in the Bill that are not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. I cannot understand how it can possibly be fair and reasonable for the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Orkney to represent only a quarter of the number of voters represented by the MSP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. Even allowing for rurality or deprivation, I cannot understand how such differentiation can be fair and reasonable.
  To return to my point, the system whereby second-class Members are selected by party lists is capable of abuse by the central authorities of political parties. The first test of that will come at the European elections. I shall be interested to see whether the Conservative party remains a pluralist party or whether the majority tendency within that party decides to remove everyone who is not a fanatical Europhobe. One of the first tests will be whether the Conservative party remains a pluralist party.
  Of course, the same applies—although to a lesser extent—to my party. I joined it as a pluralist party and I am convinced that it will remain so. If there are any doubts about that, the leadership of the party needs only to consider what happened at the Uxbridge by-election and to learn some lessons from it.
  I hope that no foreign money will be involved in the Scottish parliamentary elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about English money?"' I hope that no money from outwith the United Kingdom will be involved. I also hope that donors who live abroad but who are United Kingdom citizens and want to participate in our elections will, by donating money or getting involved in the election, be deemed to have asked to be treated as UK citizens for tax purposes. It is only fair that people who have over the years told us long and often that they are prepared to do anything for Scotland except live here, who are prepared to do anything for Scotland except pay taxes or provide money for our services, should be told either to put up or shut up. We do not need people who live in various parts of Spain to lecture us on how we should be conducting affairs in our country when they avoid paying taxes here.
  Over the years, the debates have had their lighter side. I understand that the Scottish National party has recently suggested that Members of the Scottish Parliament should be called commissars. That is an interesting proposal in itself and ties in very well with the earlier mention of Comrade Trotsky, although it is a proposal that I did not necessarily expect to hear from that party.
  76
  I understand that the SNP will abolish the antiquated form of language known as a point of order. Henceforth, "Jings! Crivens! Help ma Bob!" will be shouted to the Presiding Officer who will, as I understand it, be seated on an upturned bucket. That is an extremely uncomfortable place to sit. [Laughter.] Translations will be provided later. In addition, we will no longer have a registrar of Members' interests. Instead, we shall have a "Hon" man who will serve the same purpose and to whom submissions will have to be made in due course. [Laughter.] I shall explain later.
  I shall deal, finally, with the funding system and the nature of the relationship between the Scottish and UK Parliaments.
  Mrs. Ewing: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that there is a difference between a commissar and a commissioner. However, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he intends to stand for the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Davidson: Yes, I intend to put my name forward for the Co-operative party's panel for the Scottish Parliament. I am interested to hear that the SNP wishes to call Members of the Scottish Parliament not commissars but, if I heard correctly, commissionaires, which perhaps indicates that members of that party have spent too long in the company of film stars and their ilk. If that is how the SNP views the Scottish Parliament, as well as commissionaires we will presumably have ushers, which I remember from my younger days as a rotten pint. Presumably the SNP will be judged on that basis, too.
  I was about to mention the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. I am not sure that we can assume that the Barnett formula will run for ever—a point that has already been made. We cannot always assume that there will be good will between the two Parliaments. I am not quite sure how the mechanism is expected to operate under a Portillo Government, if I dare mention that as an outside option—an extreme outside option, please God.
  In such circumstances, will the centre have the freedom to amend the formula as it sees fit? There must be an independent assessment of how needs are to be measured. That assessment must be open and conducted in the full glare of public debate. If it is not, there is a danger that the Scottish Parliament will constantly complain of fouls, about its not being treated properly and about the outcome of a formula that is ill understood and, perhaps, far too easily manipulated. We have to set up at this stage a structure that can make such an assessment objectively and which will be responsible for examining how changes are to be made. Otherwise, we shall have a clear recipe for conflict.
  Some people—understandably, in view of their objectives—have a vested interest in conflict, but the vast majority of hon. Members want to make the system work. The funding system must be open from the very beginning. If there is a major flaw in the Bill it is that it does not clarify how central funding is to be determined and amended. I hope that the Bill will be amended as I have suggested, and that it will then make speedy progress through the House and be translated into operation on the ground.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Scotland Bill must be among the most important that the House has discussed since the end of the second world war because it will profoundly change the way in which the country is governed. That being so, I very much hope—indeed, I think it has been the case—that right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have done so with an open mind and an open spirit. I am referring to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). I also hope that Labour Front Benchers will be as responsive as possible to the criticisms that have been made of the Bill and that they will give ample time and opportunity for consideration of the detail. I greatly welcome what I understand to be a commitment that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House.
  I shall focus on two matters—the principle of devolution and its implications for England. I have never been opposed to the principle of devolution. Many arguments have been advanced against it, very often from those on the Conservative Benches, and there is no doubt that there are serious risks implied by a policy of devolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) outlined several of them. It is fairly certain that there will be tensions between the two Houses in the United Kingdom, which could put the integrity of the United Kingdom under strain.
  It is also likely that Scotland will find that, under devolution, it has less influence than now on the wider policies of the United Kingdom which impact on Scotland. Contrary to what I think is believed by the Scottish National party, under devolution Scotland will have less influence within the European Union than now and less influence on European policy that impacts on Scotland. I am fairly confident—I will come to this in more detail in a moment—that, under devolution, Scotland will pay rather more of the expenditure incurred in Scotland than it does now and that taxes will consequently go up.
  All those are substantial arguments against devolution, but standing back from all that I conclude that if the people of Scotland want devolution, whatever the disadvantages, they must have devolution. It is and always has been nonsense for us to stand in the way of that demand because the risks to the integrity of the United Kingdom flowing from denying devolution are very much greater than the risks associated with granting it. I hope that if anyone had doubts about that, last year's referendum dispelled them. There is to be devolution and there should be devolution. I support the principle of devolution and I have done so, if not publicly, for many years.
  All of us need, however, to ask ourselves another question. If there is to be devolution, should we not come together to try to make it as durable as possible? In all conscience, there is no point in putting in place a constitutional settlement that is not durable. Scottish National party Members may take a slightly different view because they regard devolution as but the first step, but I regard it as a settlement for a long time, so it needs to be durable. If it is to be durable, it must be fair to all the participants; for these purposes, I consider England to be an important participant, and I put it no higher than that. The point that I make to the House and especially to
  78
  Ministers is that the proposals are not fair to England, and because they are not fair to England, the settlement will not prove durable. The Bill is not the last word.
  I want to identify three respects in which the settlement is unfair to England. None is novel, but we need to keep them firmly in our minds. The first is the point to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has often drawn attention—what is generally known as the West Lothian question. It is absolute nonsense that Scottish Members, under the devolution proposals, will be able to express a view and vote, perhaps decisively, on the domestic policies of England whereas I shall have no say about what happens in Scotland.
  It is a little more bizarre that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will be able to express a view on what happens in Lincolnshire, but will have no say on the domestic policies that affect his constituents. That is a constitutional affront and because it is also unfair to England, the settlement will not last.
  That point is aggravated by the second point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House—the over-representation of Scotland. We can argue about the figures as long as we like, and the hon. Member for Pollok made some extremely entertaining remarks on this point. I pointed out to him that he represents a constituency of 49,284, whereas most Conservative Members represent constituencies of about 66,000. Depending on how we calculate it—we need not fall out over the detail—Scotland is over-represented by 13 to 15 Members. If it is an affront that Scottish Members can vote on English business whereas we cannot vote on Scottish business, surely the affront is aggravated by the fact that they can do so in disproportionate numbers.
  I have three observations to make to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who raised the question of Northern Ireland. First, when the Irish Members were in a similar position, they were under-represented. Under the old Stormont regime, Northern Ireland had 13 Members, which was about two thirds of its entitlement. Secondly, the absolute number of Northern Irish Members was low; that is not true of Scottish Members. Thirdly—I have not checked this point, but I suspect that it is true—the Ulster Members, for the most part, did not attend English business. To give credit to Scottish Members, they frequently do so.
  My third main point concerns the financial settlement. I can do little but echo the remarkable speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He focused, absolutely correctly, on supervision and control. I can only echo, reinforce and applaud what he said. I make just one additional point.
  The Barnett formula is a distortion of spending. The House is asked to allocate for Scotland on a per capita basis sums of 20 per cent. to 23 per cent. in excess of what is spent in England. In addition—this is really the point that my right hon. Friend made—we cannot question or call to account those who are responsible for that expenditure. That is a constitutional affront and for that reason the system is not durable.
  I want to suggest a way forward and 1 am anxious that we should create a constitutional settlement that is durable. I regret that we have not set this debate in the broader context of Scotland and constitutional arrangements for the United Kingdom generally. We

  79
  should have had a royal commission or a Speaker's Conference. There also should have been a general national debate about how to balance the new powers of a Scottish Parliament.
  I have two proposals. They are not set in concrete; there may be variations. I personally believe in the federal approach. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry that Liberal Democrat Members support that idea because I do not often agree with them and I am not reassured when I do. If, however, I ask myself how best to solve the West Lothian question, the honest answer comes to this: we need a federal constitution with four national Parliaments and a federal Parliament. There may have to be a diminution in the number and tiers of local government. I have no time for regions. I think that the idea is nonsense because, with a few exceptions, there are no definable regions in England. My conclusion is that we need a federal structure with national Parliaments and a federal Parliament. That is some way off and I suspect that the appetite for that development is not yet sharpened.
  The minimum that we need to do now is as follows: first, we must make it absolutely clear that Scotland should not be over-represented in this place; secondly, we must make it absolutely plain that Scottish Members cannot vote on the domestic affairs of England; thirdly, we must make it absolutely plain that the moneys that are allocated by this House to Scotland are moneys that can be justified by a proper needs assessment. The moneys need to be subject to proper control and supervision. That needs to be transparent and a process to which the House has access.
  I am the friend of the principle of devolution. My concern—I think that this is the concern of the whole House—is to make it work. To work, it must be durable; to be durable, it must be fair; and to be fair, it must address the specific interests of England to which I have drawn attention.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps the best compliment I can pay to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is to say that, in my considered opinion, members of the Cabinet should have been here to hear his speech.
  I hope that I shall be excused just one reminiscence of 1977. There are a dwindling number of us who went through the discussions on the subject in 1977, 1978 and 1979. On that occasion in 1977, the argument was put by Michael Foot, then Leader of the House, but almost throughout the debate there was the looming presence of James Callaghan, then Prime Minister. At least they gave the appearance of listening to the House of Commons. I should like to register that, on the Government Front Bench at the moment, there is only the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). He has many talents and is an expert on health, but even he would agree that he has no specific responsibilities in the Scottish Office for the constitution.
  So it really does come down to the devaluation of the Chamber of the House of Commons and that leads to certain dangers. One danger in particular is that the English dimension has been almost neglected. Unlike
  80
  what happened in 1977, when John Smith operated out of the Cabinet Office, the Bill we are considering today is the concoction of the Scottish Office. When have Scottish Office Ministers ever been tested on the anvil of the argument that it takes two to make a settlement? It is not just the Scots who are involved; it is the English too if it is to last and endure. If it is not to endure in the form or something like the form in which it is put forward, we are in danger of bordering on the fraudulent.
  Mr. Salmond: There may be some justification for what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but should we not rely on the judgment of English Members? The English Tory Members in the Chamber are barely in double figures and I can see no Labour or Liberal Democrat Members representing English constituencies. If hon. Members representing English constituencies choose not to listen to the hon. Gentleman, are they not registering their level of interest in the debate and, as they represent English constituencies, does that not tell the hon. Gentleman something about the feelings of their constituents?
  Mr. Dalyell: It is my personal opinion that, rather than having four Scottish Ministers opening the debate and replying to it, there certainly ought to have been a contribution from the Home Secretary, the Leader of the House or both. The fact that the Bill has been drafted and devised by the Scottish Office raises the following question: are we sure that the English are really party to what is hoped to be a long-term settlement?
  Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend is being rather disingenuous. He was the parliamentary private secretary to the Leader of the House in the 1960s. There is a web of Cabinet Committees. If we are to believe even a small amount of what is reported in The Scotsman—most of it has to be taken with a rather large pinch of salt—most, if not all, the issues have been through the bowels of the Cabinet Committee system for weeks, if not months. It is completely misleading the House to suggest that the legislation has been somehow concocted out of the air of St. Andrew's house or Victoria quay. There have been far more people involved than just Scottish Ministers who have responsibility for carrying through the legislation because the Government are united and have confidence in them to do the job.
  Mr. Dalyell: I hope to heaven that my hon. Friend is right about all the thought that has been put into the Bill. It is our duty to scrutinise what is put before us.
  The enterprise remains one of peculiar and perhaps unique difficulty. It is hard to find any significant established example of a successful semi-federal state—one in which a substantial proportion of the population is governed through a division of law making and comparable powers between a higher and a lower legislature, while the rest is governed by the higher alone. Instances such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, or even pre-1972 Northern Ireland, have been tolerable as de minimis. Scotland, with approaching 10 per cent. of the UK's population and well over 10 per cent. of its Members of Parliament, cannot be regarded in that way. Even uneven federalism can be problematical, as Quebec illustrates.
  In my view, the political difficulties have been accentuated by the apparently low level of understanding in Scotland, despite the referendum, of those difficulties

  81
  and of how genuinely awkward the semi-federal system is. There is also a lack of understanding of how significant are the special advantages that Scotland has enjoyed within the United Kingdom under the existing dispensation—the extra Members of Parliament, the extra financial allocation and the powerful position of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  One also asks whether there is an understanding in Scotland of how inescapable it is that the continuance of those advantages should come into question when any new, lasting dispensation is negotiated with other parts of the United Kingdom. If it is not lasting, it will go sour and there will be all sorts of difficulties.
  Can any Minister explain to the House how Members representing English constituencies will be persuaded for the foreseeable future—not just the particular circumstances of a Parliament in which Labour has a majority of 180—to continue to vote at least 24 per cent. more cash per capita to Scotland than to their own constituents? That is asking rather a lot of human nature.
  At the same time, they will have no control over how that extra money will be spent. How can such a position endure in the real world? That is one problem that we shall have to examine in depth in Committee.
  One thing is for sure: if the English see Scotland giving better care to lone parents or funding the disabled more advantageously or avoiding tuition fees, they will no longer acquiesce in favourable funding, the Barnett formula or anything else. Yet, woe betide Members of the Scottish Parliament were they not to take immediate action on lone parents, the disabled or tuition fees because expectations have been raised.
  So herein is a real dilemma that we had better discuss very frankly, as none of the three political parties to which the majority of Scottish voters were most disposed to listen seems to have put the matter to them squarely or candidly. However, that is water under the bridge.
  The central challenge is, amid inevitable anomaly, to devise a scheme offering a good prospect of adequately contented constitutional stability. That is why we have an obligation to explore the Bill properly.
  The main destabilising risks to be managed are in shorthand that one side of the border may consider that the settlement gives Scotland too little and the other that it gives Scotland too much. The temptations on those lines to populist political campaigning—perhaps especially in Scotland—will, over time, become considerable.
  There are various criteria to consider. The deal must not be seen by the English majority—at the outset or as experience builds up—as giving Scotland unacceptable one-sided privileges and advantages. If that happens, the settlement cannot endure.
  The deal must give Scotland enough to be regarded as worth having and must be worth the additional government costs. The Under-Secretary on the Front Bench has responsibility for health—a subject on which he is an expert. He must be aware that there are worries about the costs of devolution. Throughout the referendum campaign, some of us asked disbelievingly about the £40 million limit. Up it goes. When The Scotsman reports on its front page about the idea of sandwiches for lunch in hospitals, comparisons are made. The expense of the process is of increasing concern. That is a matter of unpalatable fact.
  82
  The deal must be robust against the risk of demands, developing in the light of experience and given vigorous voice by the Scottish Assembly, that perceived Scottish ills be remedied by the devolution of ever more powers. We had a taste of that when the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who is a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs—alas, he is not here at the moment—to ask him about discontent about the railways. My hon. Friend said that more power must go to the Scottish Parliament and that it was absurd if it did not. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire suggested that that was a taste of things to come. We must look at that closely in Committee.
  The deal must be reasonably free of built-in sources of recurrent friction, such as arguments about the allocation of United Kingdom public revenue to Scotland and about the dividing line between devolved and non-devolved functions. It must also avoid cross-border differences of law or practice too severe to be tolerable in a single state on difficult issues such as abortion law and drugs.
  Policy scrutiny of the deal must be ready to test all its features against a scenario in which the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Assembly are of markedly different party composition, yielding Governments out of sympathy with one another—perhaps sharply so. That would probably have been the situation between 1979 and May 1997.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Will not the problem be at its most acute over Europe? The Government have said that they want to allow members of the Scottish Executive to speak to the Council of Ministers.' That can happen only when the same party is in control of the Scottish Parliament and the Government. Otherwise, there is little prospect of them having the same policy and therefore little prospect of the Westminster Government being willing to allow members of the Scottish Executive to express a collective view.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I respond to that by offering the House a small and entirely true tale? In 1977–78, I was a member of Socialist International. At a meeting at Elsinore, I had the opportunity to put the Scottish problem to Helmut Schmidt—I am not name-dropping. It was late at night. He listened with extreme politeness for 10 minutes and then said gently, "I have 17 million Bavarians and Franz Josef Strauss." That is part of the problem. The Europeans had better be consulted about any solution that involves the powers or activity of a subordinate Parliament—that is what it will be—in the European Community. A proper answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman would need a treatise rather than a few sentences in the House.
  The White Paper "Scotland's Parliament" postulates collaborative amity at various points, including paragraph 4.15. That is plainly desirable, but it cannot be relied on over the long haul. The problem will arise not only

  83
  between parties of sharply different political outlook. There are situations in which people of the same party have different policies in Edinburgh from in London.
  Mr. McAllion: Absolutely.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend knows exactly what the position is from a different point of view.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend referred earlier to the danger that may arise from what he described as constant sources of recurrent friction. Does it ever cross his mind that he may be a constant source of recurrent friction in relations between the Scottish and British Parliaments?
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend, whom I wish well, intends to stand for the Parliament. The House will not be astonished to hear that I do not—not that anyone would have me.
  In the rest of my speech, I shall survey a few of the main constitutional issues that are likely to be contentious in Committee. They are representation in the House of Commons, the scope of the powers devolved, the future of the Secretary of State, how the devolved powers are delineated and how the delineation is policed.
  Scotland has 72 Members of Parliament. If constituency electorate sizes were adjusted to match those of England, it would have about 58. The discrepancy does not reflect any deep or deliberate constitutional bargain. It does not go back to the 1707 Act of Union, or even embody a conscious and thought-out choice. It seems to have developed from Scotland and England having separate boundary commissions, with no overall mechanism for adjusting the Scottish allocation of seats to reflect the gradual decline in the relative size of the Scottish population.
  That anomaly, which is open to objection even now, will become plainly unconscionable on the establishment of a Scottish Assembly with substantial law-making powers handed over by Westminster. On any reasonable view, the Scottish number must come down. The Bill warily opens the door to that, but not before 2010.
  The Scottish Grand Committee had a debate in Dumfries about Scotland in the Union during which the Secretary of State for Defence, who was then just the hon. Member for Hamilton—said:
  "Devolution lie No. 5 is that we must reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament if we have a devolved legislature in Scotland. During the devolution debate in the 1970s, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said that he would strongly oppose any suggestion of bargaining Scottish representation at Westminster in order to obtain parliamentary approval of a devolution Bill. He also said that the maintenance of the present number of Scottish MPs should be a prime objective. That point is as valid and true today as it was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman made it."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 July 1996; c. 13.]
  If it was true in January last year, it must be explained why it is not true in January this year. There are difficulties, and at least some explanation is required.
  The so-called West Lothian question—it was not dubbed the West Lothian question by me, incidentally—still arises. It is not seriously addressed in either the White Paper or the Bill. How can it be tolerable for Scottish Members of Parliament to continue to vote at Westminster
  84
  on legislation governing England on matters on which, since they are devolved matters in Scotland, they themselves—let alone their English counterparts—have no say and no responsibility in Scotland?
  Frankly, after 1999, I do not think that I shall be able in conscience to vote on purely English affairs. There is a problem. I am not going to offer any great threat to the Whips—that is not my style—but I warn them straight away that there will be a great deal of discussion on the matter.
  As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said, there is something improper in the new arrangement if the hon. Member for Linlithgow may vote on matters in relation to Lincolnshire but, in relation to Linlithgow, he cannot. How long can that go on? I say to any of my hon. Friends that that cannot endure—yet we are talking about a proposal that is to last for a very long time. Such a problem will have to be hammered out.
  The problem could go much deeper than just from-time-to-time votes on legislation, since Scotland's Members of Parliament may—as, indeed, we were for much of the 1960s and 1970s—be the "swing" factor in the political orientation of the entire United Kingdom Government and therefore in determining policies and running administration for the devolved subjects, such as health or education in England, over an English majority of a quite different party with quite different policy preferences. Are Ministers suggesting—I wish that they were here to say so—that such a situation can last in perpetuity? There is no stability about it whatever.
  Solutions of an in-and-out character—envisaging that, either by rule or convention, Scottish Members of Parliament should abstain in respect of Scotland-devolved matters—cannot be workable in the long run. No UK Government could function properly, coherently or effectively in a situation such as that during substantial periods of the two Wilson premierships and throughout the Callaghan premiership, where, without Scottish votes, the Opposition had a majority on large subjects such as health, education and transport.
  Moreover, there would be a constant scope for argument about whether Scotland was unaffected by the policies—and their costs—adopted in respect of England, which has 85 per cent. of the UK population. The Barnett formula means that changes in policies for England may ultimately, at least at the margin, affect the size of the block allocation to Scotland. There might be recurrent distorting temptations for a Government in a Wilson or Callaghan situation artificially to frame primarily English legislation in ways that contained just enough Scotland-affecting content to admit the votes of Scottish Members of Parliament. Any serious consideration of the Bill had better look at that problem.
  Another approach might in theory be for any Government in the Wilson or Callaghan situation to observe a constitutional convention that they would, in Scotland-devolved matters, simply refrain from English legislation which they could not carry without Scottish Members of Parliament. That would be an impossibly sweeping, self-denying ordinance for a Government who were elected, for example, on a manifesto of radical educational or national health service reform. The truth is that, at bottom, there can be no perfect answer to the so-called West Lothian question. The difficulty is inherent in any semi-federal or unevenly federal structure. The

  85
  only way out is some kind of compromised bargain, which could win general recognition as having enough swings and roundabouts for rough justice.
  The main working precedent is that provided for half a century at Stormont, where entitlement of 17 Westminster seats was judgmentally reduced to 12. On that precedent, the Scottish number would be reduced to—wait for it—about 41. Whether the reduction need logically to go precisely that far depends on the extent of the functions formally devolved to Scotland. Albeit in significantly different political circumstances, Stormont was given a notably wide range. There was a deep propensity among the Unionists not to diverge from Great Britain practice. It is hard to see how logic could yield any figure above, say, the 40 to 50 bracket.
  The Times leader of 21 February 1997 said of the then Leader of the Opposition:
  "But, despite promising to answer the West Lothian Question, he never did. This was a glaring hole in the centre of his speech."
  I am afraid that that glaring hole is still in the Bill, and we must talk about it frankly in Committee.
  Occasionally, someone has made the objection that devolution is not federalism—power devolved is ultimately power retained. That is of course formally true, and, indeed, inescapable in any sovereign Parliament system that lacks an entrenched written constitution, overseen by a supreme court and not amendable by simple parliamentary majority. The practical and political reality is different. The present Government cannot seriously intend—and certainly cannot say to Scotland—that the devolution settlement is to be other than a full-hearted and lasting release of power to Scotland. They cannot seriously intend that Westminster should be seen as constantly looming over Edinburgh, ready and willing to take it back.
  That is where we come to clause 27(7), which the Secretary of State raised. I asked whether subsection (7) should not be self-standing and renamed "the Westminster Parliament's preservation of sovereignty" subsection, or the "appeasement of the Home Office" subsection. Is the subsection not a preservation of Westminster's legislative competence in all matters? The Secretary of State very sharply commented on the matter.
  I happen to welcome the subsection, but, much more interestingly, do my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) welcome it? Many of those most ardently in favour of devolution have interpreted that subsection rather differently. So, our discussions on clause 27 will be extremely interesting—as will our discussions on clause 29.
  Clause 29 will allow the United Kingdom Parliament to add to or subtract from the list of reserved powers in schedule 5 by statutory instrument. That is a quick and easy method, but there will be no opportunity for amendment. The matter will be debated in Committee and not on the Floor of the House. Is that appropriate, given that schedule 5 is central to devolution and the work of the UK Parliament? Surely changes to schedule 5 must be made by primary legislation only.
  Mr. Salmond: I am becoming genuinely puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's speech, because he is known for his consistency in these matters. I have listened carefully to his arguments on the constitution over the years, most
  86
  recently during the referendum campaign. One of his principal arguments has always been that if there were devolution on the model proposed by some, independence was inevitable. He made that argument during the referendum campaign and in a debate with myself and the Secretary of State during the campaign. His speech this evening seems to have departed from that view, and he now seems to be looking at the Bill to find things in it to strengthen his position. At what stage did he stop believing that independence was inevitable and start believing that this Bill could be salvaged if only the Secretary of State listened to his advice?
  Mr. Dalyell: I began my speech by saying that the Bill should properly be called the paving Bill for the dissolution of the United Kingdom. That, take it or leave it, is my considered view. However, I think it is an obligation on Members of the House of Commons to study the Bill extremely seriously and to give it our full attention and scrutiny. That is what I am making, I hope, an honourable attempt to do.
  One other attempted line of debating escape might be that the so-called West Lothian problem is no more than a temporary anomaly pending the development of companion plans for devolution in England. This really would be threadbare. There is neither even the briefest sketch of any credible blueprint nor any sign of desire among the English public for legislative devolution—they may want different councils or councils of the north but we are talking about legislative devolution, which is the prime problem—on anything like the depth and scale in contemplation for Scotland.
  I come briefly to the scope of powers devolved. There is a natural and proper desire to devolve as wide as possible a range of subjects to the Scottish Parliament. The exceptions to be made presumably rest on one or other of two criteria.
  The first is that the subjects are of a kind—for example, defence or foreign affairs—inherently requiring to be exercised at the sovereign state level.
  The second is that the subjects are of a kind such that either significant anomaly between one part and another of the United Kingdom would be unacceptable, or actions taken by Scotland would have on other parts major repercussions of which the Parliament cannot reasonably be left the arbiter. On 19 December 1997, The Scotsman suggested that this could be another source of conflict—that is the danger of those criteria.
  In the 1974–77 episode, considerable effort was mounted—alongside the judgments made about what subjects could be devolved, and in the light of a sense that the aggregate of those might be found disappointing in Scotland—to partner the package by as much as possible in the line of further decentralisation to the Scottish Office.
  The subjects so decentralised were essentially of a "category B" character and the basis for them was a belief that, although the framework of Westminster legislation and the safeguard of UK Cabinet oversight needed to remain, local administration and discretion within those limits would be acceptable. In the event, the devolution enterprise failed, but those additional decentralisations went ahead.
  In the years of opposition, Labour leaders said that all functions currently exercised by the Scottish Office would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the White

  87
  Paper appears to reflect this. The implication is that the 1974–77 "decentralised but not devolved" judgments—both about subjects then already decentralised and about those that were added—were, without exception, mistakenly cautious; that significant anomaly and repercussion in any of the matters concerned either would not arise or would not matter. It is, to say the least, far from clear that that sweeping conclusion has yet been thoroughly tested and publicly justified. I put down the marker that that matter must be considered in Committee, because the reverse of what was done in the 1970s may create as many problems as we faced at that time, and there will be rows about resources.
  I come to the future of the Secretary of State. One of the major perceived advantages given to Scotland by the current system is the presence in the Cabinet of a senior Minister directly concerned to defend Scotland's interests. The Secretary of State's practical authority among his Cabinet colleagues has derived essentially from the executive responsibilities he shoulders as heading the Scottish Office.
  The more those responsibilities are reduced by the devolution settlement, the less standing the Secretary of State can have as anything other than a strictly irresponsible "more or better for Scotland" campaigner. If the Scottish Office has no executive responsibilities—as the White Paper implies—he or she is nothing but such a campaigner and a repository-megaphone-whipping boy for the Scottish Parliament's grumbles against Westminster and Whitehall. That cannot, in the long run, be sensible or acceptable to non-Scottish viewpoints as the basis for a seat in the Cabinet.
  Nor can a substantial role sensibly be created, as paragraph 4.14 of the White Paper implies, by designating such a Secretary of State and a small supporting staff as the prime channel—perhaps a bottleneck—of communication on substantive issues between London and Edinburgh. The London interlocutor must surely be whichever is the Department responsible for the particular subject. One must ask how reducing Scotland's voice at Westminster, where Scotland's funding will be determined, will benefit Scotland.
  I come to the delineation of devolved functions, which is a challenging task. There are many existing federations which, by definition, have delineations in place. However, the majority of those—at least in developed states with a political and public culture broadly comparable with ours—have been federations for a century or more. Their basic delineations were accordingly established at times when governmental functions were mostly much less dense, extensive and interactive than they are now. The dividing lines as they now exist have mostly been able to evolve gradually and pragmatically within a culture of familiarity with, and acceptance of, the federal concept.
  Leading instances such as Australia, Canada and the United States stretch across very large territories, so that cheek-by-jowl comparison is less intense. The drawing of an entirely new legislative boundary through a highly complex governmental scene within a relatively small, densely populated island with a powerful culture—fostered by an unusually strong nationwide media structure—of expecting consistent treatment right across the UK is without parallel anywhere else.
  88
  The approach to delineation must consider two basic questions. Should the line be drawn by describing what is devolved or what is not? The 1974–77 enterprise took the former route. Secondly, should the line be drawn by broad description of subject or by very detailed mapping in terms of the existing statute book? The 1974–77 enterprise took the latter route.
  The 1974–77 approach, in those respects, produced very long and complex Bills and was much criticised accordingly at the time and afterwards. The White Paper takes an opposite approach, but it should be recognised that there are considerable practical difficulties whatever course is preferred. There is no logical reason to suppose, as paragraph 3 of the White Paper appears to claim, that the difficulties are removed simply by reversing the approach.
  The choice of approach to delineation interacts with how it is to be policed. Who is to decide whether the Scottish Assembly has overstepped its powers? During the 1974–77 saga, that was a matter of hot debate within the Government, centring around the issue of judicial review. One school held, virtually as a matter of basic legal and constitutional principle, that it would be wrong to deny citizens the right to argue in the courts that an assembly Act that disadvantaged them exceeded the powers granted by Westminster in the devolution statute. The other school held, partly in awareness of the boundary complexity problem that I noted, that it would be unreasonable in practice, for lack-of-certainty reasons, and politically objectionable to Scotland that the primary legislation of the Assembly should be liable at any time—perhaps, long after enactment—to be struck down by the courts as ultra vires. The more broadly drawn the delineation, the greater—so that school argued—the risks.
  If the latter school prevails, the question of who is to police the boundary still arises—at some point, someone must. If there is no general right of post-enactment judicial review of the vires of primary legislation, there has to be some procedure—legal or Westminster/ parliamentary—for providing a nihil obstat at the time of enactment. In paragraphs 4.16 and 4.17, the White Paper sets out a procedure for considering vires and resolving disputes before assembly Bills pass into law, but the last sentence of paragraph 4.17 still envisages—albeit in brief terms that do not show, for example, who would have the right of action, private citizens or merely Westminster/Whitehall—that that challenge could be made after the passage of the Bill.
  No course is free from difficulty. It is fair to acknowledge that, in the two decades since 1974–77, because of the European Court, public opinion has become more accustomed to the idea that the legal system might indeed be able to overrule democratically enacted statute. However, that does not make the experience politically comfortable and the scale and weight of its incidence might—depending on the quality and style of the devolutionary delineation, the political climate and how widely any right of challenge to vires extends—be a good deal more onerous than in the European dimension, especially since it would be additional to that dimension.
  Finally, what additional taxes could be raised by the Parliament over and above the specified income tax power, if the Treasury were to restrict the amount of additional revenue available to the Scottish Parliament as a result of possible future changes to the United Kingdom

  89
  tax structure? Unless those matters are cleared up before the Bill becomes law, business and individual taxpayers will be condemned to perpetual uncertainty.
  The House has been very patient with me. I shall end by saying that, unless we resolve some of those problems, we will find that the demand for self-government in Scotland and the maintenance of the unitary character of the British state are ultimately compatible only in the realm of rhetoric. The House has been patient, but we must go into those matters in depth in the days before us.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: It is fortuitous that I am speaking after my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for reasons that will become clear.
  There are some Labour Members, or there would be if they were here, who believe that an English Member of Parliament like myself has nothing relevant to contribute to this debate because they see this Bill as an exclusively Scottish measure. That probably explains the answer to an earlier question—why there are so few English Members here. Most of them have worked out that they will not be listened to in any event, so why bother to have a say? Scottish Members who think like that are wrong. I am certain that there is a relevant English dimension and I am just as certain that that dimension is potentially very nasty.
  The English dimension that I want to discuss is not the set of issues that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised. I want to discuss what will happen if the Government choose to ignore those relevant points and all the other relevant points about English concern. If they ignore the English dimension, they will reawaken English nationalism and history teaches me at least that that is a very ugly phenomenon. Therefore, we should not proceed with this Bill until we have thought through the English dimension and ensured that the Bill does not lead to English nationalism. If that is so, the Bill is premature and should not receive a Second Reading tomorrow night.
  Today and tomorrow, the Government seek to make a fundamental constitutional change in just one part of the United Kingdom. That makes the Bill a dangerous ad hoc process. To make matters worse, the Bill will be followed by the Government of Wales Bill, which would make a different set of ad hoc changes that will also be dangerous. After that, if the Government are successful, they will try to achieve yet a different variation on the same ad hoc theme in Northern Ireland—three sets of ad hocery.
  In contrast to all that ad hoc change, the Government seem to believe that they can get away with little or no change in England. If I understand them correctly, their current approach is to offer a pledge in their next election manifesto that they will consult us, the English, on some half-baked artificial local government region scheme. Treating the English like that is simply playing with fire.
  Do not get me wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not against Scottish devolution in principle if that is what the Scottish people want and the recent referendum certainly suggests that they do. I am not necessarily against this form of devolution, provided that it is part of a United Kingdom-wide package and that it is not simply ad hocery.
  90
  So, I am against proceeding with this Bill in isolation. The wider UK implications have yet to be thought through and they must be before we go any further down this track. As it stands, the Bill simply plays fast and loose with the British constitution. Before we proceed with it, the Government need to devise a United Kingdom-wide framework based on a full constitutional review of all four parts of our nation. Before they draw up that framework, they need to decide whether they are considering regionalism or nationalism.
  At the moment, the Government seem to be totally confused on that matter. First, they are offering us a Scottish Parliament. In a week or two, they will offer us a Welsh Assembly, even though only a quarter of the Welsh people seem to want it. Later, they will talk about English regions—what a total muddle and what utter confusion.
  The Government are tinkering with both regionalism and nationalism at the same time. They are treating those two different concepts as though they were interchangeable, which they most certainly are not. The Government need to make up their mind what they think they are doing. Is their devolution policy based on regionalism or nationalism? If I understand the Bill correctly, I must conclude that the Government are acting on a sense of Scottish national self-identity. If that is so, the Bill is about nationalism, which is why I worry about the reawakening of English nationalism.
  On whatever concept the Bill is based, the Government simply have to treat the other three parts of the United Kingdom in exactly the same way, because if they do not, as others have said before me, they will provoke an English backlash. Indeed, I get the impression that that backlash has already begun.
  Far too many people seem to have forgotten what English nationalism is capable of. Even the briefest scanning of the history of the United Kingdom should be enough to remind us all: rape, pillage and mayhem leap from virtually every page of that history. Throughout Scotland, Wales and Ireland there are countless monuments to the local heroes who were slain in a vain attempt to stem a relentless tide of English domination. It is worth looking back at what history has to teach us.
  As a proud Englishman, I can well understand the national pride of the Scots that underpins the Bill, but as one of the 47 million men and women in England I caution the 5 million Scots to pause for a moment and consider how they might fare if this huge English majority decides that it is being pushed about by a small minority.
  Mr. Shepherd: Does not my hon. Friend accept, though, that England is in a sense the melting pot? Hundreds of thousands of Scots, Welsh and Irish live in England, and many hon. Members, myself included, claim that we are part of a wider family. I am Scottish by birth, with a Scottish mother and an English father, and many of us can trace Irish or Welsh ancestry. This is the melting pot; the division between England and this Union of ours is not so bleak or so black and white.
  Mr. Wilshire: I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend turns out to be right. There are, indeed, within the 47 million a number of people who feel as he does, but I most certainly sense that there are also great numbers who consider themselves English, which is what leads me to speak tonight. I worry about what will happen if those people in the English majority decide that they want to do something about what is going on.

  91
  Some, indeed, have already started: several constituents have asked me whether the Bill means that we, the English, will stop putting our money into other people's pockets; however hard I try, in fairness to the Government, to explain that it is not really like that, it does not do much to reassure them. "What about the English?" has been a recurring theme in my constituency, at least, ever since the Scottish and Welsh referendums. What about the English indeed? The House would do well to take that sentiment seriously.
  Let me make it clear again for the record that I am not opposed to all the details in the Bill, only to the timing and the ad hoc approach. If the Scots want home rule, that is fine by me, provided that we, the English, get the same. Trying to fob us off with so-called regions is pathetic. When the Scots sing "Flower of Scotland" and the Welsh sing "Land of My Fathers", what, pray, are the worthy burghers of Spelthorne to sing—"God Save Our Glorious South-East", perhaps? God save us from it, would be my sentiment.
  If the Government are determined to go down this route, I believe that there is only one safe way to do so: as part of a federal constitution. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made precisely that point. Such an approach would probably lead to a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, which is what the Labour party wants, a Welsh Parliament in Cardiff, a Northern Ireland Parliament in Belfast and an English Parliament in, say, Birmingham, with Westminster left to deal only with matters such as defence and foreign affairs.
  Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with a federal solution is that it can work only where the parts are roughly equal? The only experience of federalism in a different context, in Germany after 1870, showed clearly that it was impossible to discharge the burden of governing Germany without also being in control of Prussia, because one single entity was wholly dominant over the others. Is not that good evidence to show that federalism in its pure form is unworkable in this country?
  Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because, having rehearsed where I consider that the debate ought to be taking us, I was about to say that I would vigorously oppose that approach, for precisely such reasons as he has given. At least the scheme that I have outlined is intellectually and politically honest, which is more than can be said for the Bill.
  The Bill is at best a cheap attempt to buy off Scottish National party votes; at worst, it could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom and the reappearance of an extremely unsavoury English nationalism. I am implacably opposed to both those possibilities, but I genuinely fear that that is where we may be heading. That is why I urge the House to deny the Bill a Second Reading tomorrow night.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gets embarrassed when praised too much; he should be used
  92
  to it by now, but out of respect for him I shall get it over with at the beginning: I congratulate him on a technically brilliant Bill that is more radical than anyone could have imagined a year ago, when I was shadow spokesperson on constitutional affairs, and that delivers the policy in the White Paper with clarity and comprehensiveness, and with speed, notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said.
  There have been a few additions since the White Paper: I am sure that we were all greatly enlightened to learn from schedule 5 that outer space is a reserved area, but I hardly think that many people would have changed their vote on 11 September because of that information.
  I also congratulate my right hon. Friend—my last congratulation—on his choice of a site for the Parliament. The two main alternatives were in my constituency, but I believe that nobody can criticise him for going for a new-build option in the historic heart of Edinburgh; indeed, I praise him for it.
  I also commend, in far more muted terms, the more positive attitude towards constitutional change of the right hon. Member for Devizes and several other members of the Conservative party since the referendum, but I ask them to reflect on the wisdom of pushing for more to be included in the Bill in respect of Europe, financial matters and the so-called West Lothian question.
  I would be interested to see the Conservative amendments on the last two matters. I wonder whether Conservative Members will be able to reach a common position, because the differences in their party about finances and the so-called West Lothian question probably reflect a fundamental fault line between those Conservatives who genuinely want to make the Union work and those referred to so often this evening as the English nationalists.
  I believe that only English nationalism, not Scottish nationalism, can destabilise and be a threat to the settlement, but I do not think that we can put anything in the Bill to control that. I would like to believe that the Conservative and Unionist party is genuinely Unionist.
  It is absolutely right that relations with the European Union are a reserved matter. Especially since the Single European Act 1985 and the advent of majority voting, it is far more in Scotland's interest to be part of a large voting bloc—the United Kingdom. It is also right that the specific details of how the Scottish Parliament relates to the United Kingdom in the European Union should not be entrenched in the Bill. The constitution unit said that long before the general election.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution said, there will be a Scrutiny Committee in the Scottish Parliament and there will be far more opportunities for the Scottish voice in Europe to be heard. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) read out the figures for the past 18 years of how many European Councils Conservative Ministers had attended, so it ill befits Conservative Members to talk about the Scottish role in Europe under their running of the Union. I believe that the Government have got it right on Europe, and I look forward with great confidence and optimism.
  I ask Opposition Members to reflect more broadly on the underlying reasons for the Bill. Many hon. Members have moved a long way since 11 September, but unfortunately some have not moved any distance. I commend to them one of the great speeches on

  93
  constitutional reform given in the House by Malcolm Rifkind in 1976, on the night when he resigned from the Front Bench to support the Labour party on devolution.
  In that speech—on 16 December 1976 if any Opposition Member wants to read it—Malcolm Rifkind made some of the classic arguments for the Bill that we are discussing. The first thing that he said was that devolution—obviously it was a different scheme—is about good government for Scotland and the United Kingdom, and he pointed out that there has been a vast accumulation of powers within the Scottish Office over the 100 years or so since it was set up. The simple reality is that these issues cannot properly be dealt with—notwithstanding the brilliance of the present incumbents on the Scottish Front Bench—because at the moment in the Scottish Office there are the equivalent of eight or nine Whitehall Ministries, and we get only one Question Time a month and not many debates. The current debates on the Bill are the exception rather than the rule.
  The issues are that there should be time for legislation and for scrutiny of policy, and that Ministers should be accountable, because from recent experience in the Scottish Office, and from dealing with Scottish matters from the Front Bench before that, there was very little opportunity for that. One compensation is that I can make more speeches now, because we do not have many debates on Scottish matters. There is very little accountability, apart from the one Question Time a month, because of the institutional structures that have existed for the past 100 years. The fundamental underlying argument for the Bill is better and more accountable government. I very much look forward to the Scottish Parliament delivering better government for Scotland.
  Many massive and exciting developments in the Scottish health service have not received the credit that they deserve. There was a White Paper before Christmas, and there will be a Green Paper very soon. Perhaps it is because they have been so broadly welcomed and not attracted criticism that they have not flooded the media. The House has not had an opportunity to examine those policies in detail, and there will probably be little opportunity to do so. I look forward in the Scottish Parliament to a great opening out of the health debate, and the interrelationship that the Government emphasise between health and other policy areas, such as housing and the environment.
  The Bill is a tremendous opportunity for better government for Scotland. In fact it is even more exciting than that, because it will mean not just better government but the beginning of a new politics, which is very fitting, because they will coincide with the new century. I shall pick out just four aspects of the new politics for the new century which the Scottish Parliament will trailblaze, and which I hope that, in time, Westminster will copy.
  First, we will have an example of power sharing. I think that it has been said that the 21st century will be the century of power sharing. In a sense independence, to which those in the SNP still attach themselves, is the doctrine of the 19th century. Interdependence and power sharing will be the way for the next century, and that will be embodied in the relationships that will develop between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. Clearly, many of those relationships will have to evolve. It is not right to put some of these things on the face of the Bill. As long as people want to make it work, it will
  94
  work. Perhaps my colleagues will disagree, but I have enough optimism about the Unionism of the Conservative party to believe that it, too, will want to make it work. I commend Scottish Conservatives by and large on having taken that attitude since the referendum.
  The second aspect of the new politics is, of course, proportional representation, which is right. It is something that I came to believe in partly through my experience of the constitutional convention and from working with other parties within it. One of the advantages of PR is that it will lead to less confrontational and more co-operative politics in the Scottish Parliament.
  If British people vote for PR in the referendum that we have promised them, in many ways the West Lothian question will disappear, because that question arises from the fact that it would in theory be possible for Scottish Labour Members, presumably, to be the crucial elements within a future Labour Government, whereas under PR, Labour votes from Scotland are unlikely to be decisive in the same way, although I must point out that, between 1979 and 1997, we put up with this in spades in the sense that all our policies in Scotland were imposed on us by a massive majority of English Tory Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If these measures are to be part of a total constitutional package, would not it have been wise to have submitted them in toto to the electorate? He says that PR will remove the West Lothian question, but surely that is one of the matters that should have been put to the English electorate as part of their consideration as to whether they would accept the totality of the package. The danger is that the proposals are ad hoc, and therefore at some point there is a danger that they will simply be tripped up and fall flat in the mud.
  Mr. Chisholm: I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I do not personally see the West Lothian question—which is why I keep saying the "so-called" West Lothian question—as an insuperable obstacle. Some people are very hung up on a symmetrical constitutional arrangement. We do not have symmetrical arrangements at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) omitted to mention Spain, for example, where asymmetrical devolution is well tried and tested. I do not personally think that it will be a problem. I am just pointing out, as part of my section on PR, that were the United Kingdom electorate to vote for PR, it would take away completely the theoretical problem that could arise in future of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament being the determining voice within a United Kingdom Labour Government.
  Mr. Shepherd: The whole point behind the West Lothian question is equality of citizenship. We are not equal citizens. How on earth does the hon. Gentleman's PR proposal do away with that? It does not, of course, and that was an extraordinary syllogism—or whatever it was—that he threw in. He knows perfectly well that PR does not address the question. Even if there were PR across the whole of the United Kingdom, Scottish Members of Parliament, however elected, will have a competence in areas that are denied to English Members of Parliament in relation to Scotland. In fact Scottish

  95
  Members of Parliament will have no responsibility to the electorate for the conclusions of their decisions on wholly English matters.
  Mr. Chisholm: Perhaps I am beginning to regret the aside that I made. The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting example. I was merely saying that the perceived problem, as far as I can see, is to do with a theoretical possibility. I accept that the hon. Gentleman takes a different position on that, but I do not think his view is shared by a large number of people. I shall move on.
  I said that one of the features of PR is that it would lead to a less confrontational, new style of politics. The procedures of the new Parliament will build on and develop that. It is quite right that the procedures have not been put in the Bill in detail, as they should be up to the Parliament. We have talked about a people's Parliament. By that we mean a people's Parliament in terms of how it operates and who is in it. There will be opportunities for far more pre-legislative scrutiny in Scotland than we have here. Although we can have Special Standing Committees, we tend not to use them. There will be a debate about what kind of Committee structure we want in the new Parliament. It does not have to be exactly the same as in Westminster. Many of the Government's policy initiatives cut across traditional areas—welfare to work, child care and so on—so the new Parliament may wish to embody that. It will be up to the new Parliament to decide.
  We also want a people's Parliament in terms of who will be in it. I do not criticise the Government but simply ask them to consider how that could be brought about. We are committed to gender equality in the Scottish Parliament but we risk a legal challenge. I regret that the Labour party did not challenge the ruling on all-women shortlists a couple of years ago, but we must now live with that. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider introducing a temporary special measure to exclude the first elections from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975? Some argue that the Act should not apply anyway, but given that there may be a challenge on the basis of that Act, a temporary special measure as detailed in the United Nations report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women could at least be considered.
  All the debates about amending the Sex Discrimination Act have had in the background the threat of a European challenge under the terms of the equal treatment directive. I have been looking at that matter and am slightly puzzled by it. The treaty of Rome seems to say that the EU has no legislative competence in relation to national legislation. Also a statutory quota is in place in Belgium, for example, under a law of 24 May 1994, whereby 33.3 per cent. of candidates must be female. That is less than what we want, but the principle is established. Under the Danish equality of treatment legislation, sexual discrimination is not allowed but an exemption from the Act may be granted and, in such cases, equality of treatment is promoted for both sexes in a transitional period by giving one sex preferential treatment to redress actual inequality. If that already happens in Europe, I wonder whether the equal treatment directive will be the block that has been suggested. I know that the Government are looking at all those matters and I would welcome a report on them.
  96
  I wish to pose two more questions, just in case the Government get too carried away with all the praise that I am giving them. The first relates to the Equal Opportunities Commission. We are committed not just to gender equality in the Scottish Parliament but to policies that establish gender equality. The Equal Opportunities Commission is a key body in the United Kingdom; will the Government consider making it a cross-border public body so that it has a locus within the Scottish political system? The Parliament could then call for reports from the EOC.
  Secondly, clause 113 of the Wales Bill says:
  "(1) The Assembly shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
  (2) After each financial year of the Assembly, the Assembly shall publish a report containing—

  (a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) … and

  (b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity."

  Could we have such a clause in the Scotland Bill?
  My three questions are related but they are not criticisms. I repeat the praise and congratulations that I gave at the beginning of my speech. I spend some of my time criticising the Government on one particular aspect of policy, but I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on their many achievements since 1 May. Of those achievements, this Bill is the crowning glory.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I shall oppose the Bill tomorrow night, because of how it is drafted. I wish to make it clear, however, that I do not oppose the principle of devolution. Unlike the hon. Members to whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred, who may have changed their minds since the referendum, I have always believed that the principle of devolution is right. I would go so far as to say that it is an essentially Conservative principle of driving power down, so that it is closest to the people whom it affects. That is a fundamental principle.
  I also accept the will of the Scottish people as portrayed in the referendum, but we should not necessarily take that as meaning that they have agreed to every dot, comma and clause of the Bill. After all, they were presented with a White Paper on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with a single qualifying question on the issue of tax-raising powers.
  I oppose the Bill as drafted because it creates constitutional anomalies which neither it, nor any other declared Government policy, sets out to address and correct. I oppose it also because it fails totally to provide for proper accountability of the new Scottish Parliament. I do not profess to say what is right for the people of Scotland; I am not qualified to speak for them. However, Members of this House have a much wider and more fundamental responsibility on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom to reflect on the implications for the United Kingdom of any measure that may be put forward, even if it applies to only one part of the United Kingdom.
  The Bill provides for a Parliament with considerable powers, many of which probably go much further than was originally expected. They include the 3 per cent. income tax-varying power, which is the only

  97
  accountability provided for. At the same time, the House is considering a Bill for a Welsh Assembly, which will have much less power in terms of what takes place in Wales. We are promised proposals for regional assemblies in England and possibly some form of assembly in Northern Ireland. I would be wise not to digress into that: I just hope that some positive results come from the current talks.
  In promoting this Bill, the Government seek a popular measure without real thought for the long-term future of the United Kingdom. By setting up an array of bodies in various parts of the UK with different levels of devolved power and accountability, they have made future constitutional crisis a certainty.
  Real constitutional change and political courage would have come from reforms across the whole of the United Kingdom, including, fundamentally, reform of the public finances to allow for true local accountability. Interestingly, throughout Labour's period in opposition, it opposed the concept of capping local authorities. In theory, that opposition was right, because such capping destroys local accountability.
  Like the new Government, our Government were hamstrung by the issue of public finances. The fact that local government expenditure is part of national expenditure means that it is an economic instrument. As a result of that capping, local elections over the past few years have been fought entirely on national issues, not on the notion of local accountability for how local services are run. The Conservative party learned that to its cost, and our national unpopularity caused loss of control locally, regardless of how councils were run. Just as surely, Labour will have the same experience in the coming years.
  The Bill's promoters will claim that the 3 per cent. income tax-varying power will achieve that level of accountability, but I do not believe that it will. I shall again use a local government analogy. The Government's special capping limit agreed for Cambridgeshire will have to be exceeded by, interestingly enough, 3 per cent., simply because that is our total standard spending assessment. It could be argued that that is the fault of the local authority, but the blame will be laid at the Government's doorstep. Just as surely as the blame for constraint in local authority expenditure in Cambridgeshire in the past few years was laid at my party's doorstep, so the Labour party will now be criticised.
  That will happen in Scotland, because Members of the Scottish Parliament will say, "Never mind the 3 per cent. that we may or may not use to vary income tax: the problem is the block grant provided by the United Kingdom Parliament." We cannot foresee exactly what will happen, but, if the Barnett formula is revised or reviewed, or, as several hon. Members have said, the block grant is reduced for one reason or another, we will create a platform on which nationalism will be allowed to flourish.
  The nationalists will be able to build resentment about the continued, alleged English or United Kingdom, parsimonious attitude to the amount of money being passed to Scotland. The 3 per cent. tax-varying power will become less relevant.
  Those who seek an independent Scotland will exploit the belief that the House is interfering with the operation of the Scottish Parliament. That will be exacerbated if
  98
  the day ever comes, as surely it will, when the House is controlled by a different political party from that which makes up the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Swinney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people who aspire to independence may have different motivations? As a result of the success of the limited powers of the Scottish Parliament, people in Scotland may decide that their self-confidence as a community is growing, and that they want to assume full control of all their affairs. That seems a natural state of being, to which people in Scotland may aspire.
  Mr. Paice: The reasons for aspiring to independence are varied. I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's view. I believe passionately that it is not in the interests of Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom for the United Kingdom to be broken up. If that day ever comes, I will fight vehemently to dissuade people from going down that road.
  I want to concentrate on the purely financial issue. I believe that devolved government should be based on the ability to raise the necessary finance to fund devolved expenditure. Many of my hon. Friends may argue that a Scottish Parliament would increase taxes, drive out business, kill off any inward investment and increase unemployment. That may happen, and it would be a tragedy for Scotland if it did, but that is what democracy is all about.
  I would oppose such policies in any way I could, but we must accept that democracy is about the public making choices. People have a right to choose. With every Labour Government, they have decided, after a relatively short time—about six years—that enough is enough and that they cannot stand their profligacy, and they have thrown them out. If the public do not like high spending and high taxing, or if people decide that that is what they want, they have the right to choose.
  I have many specific concerns. I recognise that the Government have tried to deal with some of the problems. I am a fervent opponent of the concept of proportional representation, but I accept that the Secretary of State is trying to address the concern of people in rural parts of Scotland that they will be dominated by the central belt. I believe that they will be, but I recognise that the Government are at least trying to deal with that problem, and I am happy to pay tribute to them, although I do not think that their solution will be satisfactory.
  The Bill is the start of the agenda for constitutional change that the Government have no plans to complete, but completed it will have to be at some stage in the future. When the Bill is enacted, the United Kingdom Parliament will have different levels of power as it affects different parts of the United Kingdom.
  The debate this evening on the West Lothian question has concentrated on the rights and wrongs of Scottish Members of Parliament voting on English matters, on which they cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament, even though they affect their constituents. However, there is a more fundamental aspect. Is it right for the House of Commons to have Members from across the United Kingdom who have different responsibilities and powers? We shall have to face that fundamental problem as the Bill goes through the House.
  The basic tenet of the House of Commons was fought for over centuries. Every hon. Member is elected by popular franchise under our present electoral system, and

  99
  once elected they are all equal. We vote on matters that affect other parts of the United Kingdom as well as our constituencies. As a result of this legislation, no longer will every hon. Member be equal. We must recognise that serious problem, and during the passage of the Bill, we must try to address it.
  Mr. Grieve: Is my hon. Friend aware that, apart from anything else, it is difficult to reconcile that change in status with the European convention on human rights? We propose to incorporate one of its articles, which concerns the freedom of the electorate to choose their legislature. That is incompatible with the creation of a Scottish Parliament, unless approval is first obtained from the entirety of the electorate in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Paice: I confess that I had not thought of that, but I should have realised that my hon. Friend, with his wide knowledge and wisdom, would come up with yet another important aspect concerning the different status that will be held by different hon. Members.
  I do not agree with those hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, who suggest that the solution is simply to debar Scottish hon. Members from voting on English matters. That would compound the problem of their variable status. When people are elected to the House of Commons, they are elected to be part of the governance of the United Kingdom, and they should be equal, whichever part of the United Kingdom they represent.
  The Bill will result in resentment on both sides of the English-Scottish border. The Scots will resent the financial aspects to which I have referred, and that will be a cause of continuous friction. There will also be increasing resentment in England about the Scottish influence. The problem is more than just the West Lothian question: it is also the varying roles of hon. Members of this House. It is not merely that Scottish Members of the House of Commons will be able to vote on English matters, but that they may be debarred from holding ministerial office and dealing with matters that are wholly English. That is another aspect of whether this variable status is acceptable. A Member elected to this House for a Scottish constituency will be not legally but morally debarred from acting as Secretary of State for Health, or for Education and Employment or as Minister of Agriculture. Scottish Members who aspire to ministerial office have not yet thought that problem through.
  I do not believe that the solution is to be found in regional assemblies for England of the type suggested in some quarters. It is offensive to Scotland to suggest that such regional assemblies are equivalent to a Scottish Parliament. What is more, there is no such thing as regional identity in most parts of the United Kingdom. The regions in question would be wholly artificial, without historical boundaries or natural affinity.
  There is, for instance, no affinity between Lowestoft or Great Yarmouth and Cambridge or Hertford. I know from my time as a Minister dealing with regional offices that people in Devon and Cornwall do not feel themselves part of the same region as Bristol, where their regional office would be—they hold up their hands in horror at the very idea. It is thus a non-starter to suggest that regional assemblies in England can replicate the sort of devolved powers proposed for Scotland.
  100
  If the Bill becomes law, I have come to the conclusion—surprisingly, so have some of my colleagues—that the only permanent solution to the resulting constitutional morass will be English and Welsh Parliaments with similar devolved powers, responsible for raising funds for their own devolved responsibilities and operating under a reformed and reduced UK House of Commons.
  These proposals represent the antithesis of the old cry that there should be no taxation without representation. Over the past few years, we have moved towards the idea of representation without taxation, and the Bill follows that route. Certainly, there is a small amount of taxation at the margins, but there is no true democratic accountability of the kind that people deserve.
  Others have said that devolution will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is necessarily so. I have always believed that devolution is right in principle, although this Bill might indeed lead to the break-up of the UK. It fails to answer some of the most fundamental questions to do with democracy which I and others have asked tonight. It will give rise to ever more friction between the peoples of Scotland and England.
  Far from being the enduring solution to the problems of many years, the Bill will be a step towards darkness and ever increasing divisions between our separate countries. In years to come, some Government—I fear that it will be a Conservative Government—will be faced with clearing up the resulting constitutional mess, a task that will have to be done if we are to retain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That unity of the nation is fundamental to the well-being and responsibilities of this House. If we allow the Bill to pass in this form, we shall be doing that unity a great disservice.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I join my colleagues in welcoming the Bill which, as many have said, is much more radical than we had expected before the election. I also welcome what it means to the future of democracy in Scotland and in the United Kingdom generally. I also congratulate Scottish Office Ministers on the way in which they have dealt with the Bill since the election.
  I have no doubt about the need for constitutional change. My vacation from this place between 1992 and 1997 sharpened my view of the need for constitutional change for Scotland and for the UK. This evening my hon. Friends and I, listening to Conservative speeches, have been given some merriment by the rattling of English sabres and by the talk of an English backlash emanating from Members such as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who spoke of the rise of English nationalism.
  I remind Conservative Members that we did not pluck this idea out of the ether; there has been a long process of dialogue about devolution, in Scotland and throughout the country, not just since the 1992 election, but ever since the last devolution proposals came before the House in 1978. Moreover, it was not just the people of Scotland who voted at the election—the people of England also voted for a Government on whose list of priorities

  101
  devolution figured prominently. Now the Government, following the referendum, have delivered that devolution—
  Mr. Grieve: I understand the historical strength of feeling about devolution in the Scottish context, but might I point out that it was the Labour Government who thought it necessary to seek the approval of the Scottish people for the principle behind their devolution proposals? Yet there has been no such process of consulting the electorate of England on how they view the knock-on consequences of the proposals. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that those of us who represent English constituencies and who firmly believe in the Union have our ear close enough to the ground to know that that is just not tenable?
  Mr. Doran: The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times tonight in various forms. The consultation exercise was held during the general election. The Government went to the people clearly promising referendums on devolution for Scotland and Wales, and the English people voted in favour of that.
  Devolution for Scotland and Wales is the start of a process of bringing democracy much closer to the people and of removing power from Westminster. The centralisation of power at Westminster over the past 18 years has been brought to a juddering halt. That in itself is a massive achievement. It is a process that will be difficult to reverse, despite what Conservative Members say about how a Conservative Government might act—although I note that Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen have stated that they will not attempt to reverse the process.
  As for the rest of the country, I look forward to debates in the House on taking the devolution process beyond Scotland and Wales and into the regions of England, which of course will be granted their consultation process, too. I particularly welcome the form of the Bill, not only because in it the Labour party has kept in full its manifesto promises, but because the spirit and the principle of the White Paper that was published in the summer are set out in full in the Bill.
  The Bill is a model of how the working arrangements of a modern Parliament should be set out. Not surprisingly, the House could learn some useful lessons from it. For example, I am especially interested in the provisions of clause 22, which for the first time will provide a statutory basis for the registration and declaration of interests. It also introduces the concept of criminal offences for those who abuse the provisions. The House could look at that and learn from it. Much of what has happened over the past few years and which has so damaged the Conservative party might not have happened if there had been such sanctions. I have always found it difficult to understand why hon. Members are treated differently on these issues from other public servants, including elected local government members. In Scotland, that will certainly be put right.
  As I said, the Bill sets out the framework for a modern Parliament that will operate in the new millennium. I shall devote the rest of my speech to considering the impact of the new Parliament on the part of Scotland that I am proud to represent—the north-east and particularly the city of Aberdeen. I do that not just for parochial reasons, but
  102
  because one of the devolution myths is that the whole of the north-east of Scotland voted against devolution legislation in the 1979 referendum. It is certainly true that in Grampian, which contains my area of Aberdeen, there was a narrow majority against. I have never been convinced that Aberdeen city voted against the legislation.
  One of the main problems with the 1978 legislation was the fear that the proposed assembly would be controlled by Scotland's central belt, to the detriment of the regions. That was obviously a major issue in the campaign, and it was raised again by the opponents of devolution in the recent referendum.
  Aberdeen is crucial to Scotland's economy. Some key industries are based in the city, and they are important not just to Scotland but to the whole United Kingdom. For example, the city is the oil and gas capital of Europe, and oil development in the North sea accounts for a substantial proportion of the United Kingdom's industrial investment. About 56,000 direct jobs in the oil industry are based in Aberdeen and the surrounding area, and many of the 330,000 oil-related jobs in the rest of the United Kingdom depend on the industry in Aberdeen. This year, the industry will contribute about £4 billion through taxes and royalties to the Exchequer.
  Aberdeen is also a major fishing port and provides a substantial number of jobs at the harbour and the fish market and in the processing and transport of fish. Peterhead harbour, which is just a few miles from Aberdeen, is the largest fish market in Europe and between them, Aberdeen and Peterhead markets land about 70 per cent. of all white fish landings in the UK. Fishing is part of the food industry that is based in the north-east of Scotland, and it is renowned for the quality of its produce. Despite the recent bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, we produce fish, beef, dairy products, drink—particularly whisky—and other agricultural products that are sought not just in the UK but throughout the world. Aberdeen city alone accounts for nearly 32 per cent. of Scottish food exports, and that figure does not include whisky exports.
  We have a substantial paper manufacturing industry, and Aberdeen city accounts for about 30 per cent. of Scotland's paper exports. We have substantial manufacturing and engineering industries and a significant textile industry although, like the rest of that industry in the UK, it has reduced in recent years and we are concerned about our largest private manufacturer, Richards, which has been producing textiles in the Broadford works in Aberdeen for nearly 200 years. There is much concern about the future of jobs in the company, mainly because of recent boardroom squabbles about the direction that the company should take. [Interruption.]
  I am glad that hon. Members are interested enough to listen. Aberdeen's economy is buoyant. We have heard much about the financial aspects of devolution. My area is probably the richest part of Scotland, and we probably have the lowest unemployment rate in the UK of about 2 per cent. We have all the problems of success. There is a shortage of industrial land and high property costs. There are higher than average wage rates, higher housing costs and skills shortages in some areas, but those problems are all being tackled.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman speak about the buoyancy and

  103
  success of the Aberdeen economy, because it is a part of the country to which I am quite attached. Does he agree that that success must be based on 18 years of Conservative government?
  Mr. Doran: In the main, it is based on the fact that we are close to the North sea. We have access to the best fishing grounds in Europe, and I do not think that the Conservative Government put the oil in the North sea. It was certainly first exploited under a Labour Government, and the structures that the Conservative Government exploited were all put in place by the previous Labour Government.
  Aberdeen is a modern and optimistic city, and it is planning for its future and looking forward to the millennium. I speak to people from companies in my constituency who have a much longer perspective. The past 30 years have seen dramatic changes in the city, and we are now not just planning for 2000 but looking ahead to 2020. That is the perspective of a confident people, confident businesses and confident institutions, including our local authority. The people of Aberdeen are optimistic. They are forward looking, modern in outlook and delighted to be part of the most dynamic local economy in the UK and perhaps in Europe.
  Mr. Gray: Although we are greatly enjoying the guided tour of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and doubtless there will be a few press releases for the local press, what on earth have those comments to do with the debate?
  Mr. Doran: If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to listen, I will tell him.
  In the September referendum, the confident people whom I have been describing voted convincingly for the Scottish Parliament. More than 70 per cent. of Aberdonians voted for a Scottish Parliament and more than 60 per cent. of them voted for the tax-raising power. On key issues, they are prepared to trust their future to the Scottish Parliament. Their confidence is not misplaced. The Bill ensures that Scotland will be governed by a modern Parliament as part of the Union, and with the certainty that all parts of the country will be properly represented in the new Parliament and able to play their full part in our new constitutional arrangement. My constituents enthusiastically welcome that.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: This is a great day for Scotland and for England. It is clearly a great day for Scotland because at last we are on the way to achieving democracy there, which we have never had because, before 1707, Parliament was distinctly less democratic than it is now. It is a sort of birthday. We are giving a group of people an opportunity to run their affairs better. That is what democracy and public life should be all about, so we strongly welcome the Bill. Any idiot can criticise it and, in a few minutes, I shall do precisely that, but the Bill's main thrust is along the lines that my party has wanted for many years. The Scottish Constitutional Convention has brought that together.
  It is an important day for the English. As several speeches have shown, the English are starting to wake up, which is a good thing. The fact of the Scottish Parliament
  104
  coming along has made English representatives and English people ask, "Who am I? What system runs me? How is my democracy going to develop?" For the first time, some English people are realising that English and British is not synonymous. It is an important development. The English nationalism that we have heard about should be harnessed productively. The English have to get their act together and start to think how they want England to be run, whether it be by an English Parliament, by regional assemblies or by a mixture of both.
  Mixed up with that, we have had the usual Conservative stuff. The bottom line is that many Conservatives do not trust the Scots to run their own affairs without making such a mess of it that they will destroy the United Kingdom. That was exhibited by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who wanted this Parliament to have financial control over the Scottish Parliament because the Scottish Parliament could not possibly keep its books in order.
  Clearly, all public money should be accounted for and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the Scottish Parliament must have a good system of accountability and of looking after public money, but this Parliament does not go round examining in detail how local authorities spend their money. There is a law saying that local authorities have to account for their money properly. In the same way, the Scottish Parliament will do that. We do not need an English nanny state looking after the money for which the Scottish Parliament is accountable.
  It has also been argued that, as a result of the Bill, Scotland's influence in Europe will be weaker. I cannot see how that can possibly be because, under the present system, Scotland's influence in Europe is as near to zero as makes no difference. Surely, if there had been a Scottish Parliament, with the great interest that the Scots have in beef, agriculture and fishing, we would never have allowed our beef and fishing industries to get into the complete shambles that they have, when the whole thing is run on a UK basis.
  Another argument is that the timing is wrong. It goes back to the words of St. Augustine:
  "Give me chastity … but do not give it yet."
  It is said that people are, in principle, in favour of devolution, but that they do not want it yet; the timing and the small print are not right. If we waited for some omnibus UK scheme—an all-singing, all-dancing scheme, with every part of the UK beautifully balanced and marvellously run—we would all be dead. It would not happen. In fact, this Bill, with all its implications, has been introduced because of the irresistible demand of the Scottish people to run their own affairs. That is provoking a constitutional debate throughout the United Kingdom, which is a great step forward. It is a very encouraging day for both the Scots and the English.
  I want to deal with three aspects of the Bill. The Secretary of State dismissed the suggestion that there should be some voter choice in the list. We want the voters to have some say in who gets in from the list. It is not an intellectually taxing task to ask the voters to number, one to five, on the list the people from the party they favour. Indeed, if they were allowed to put "x" against one preferred person, that would be better than nothing. It is not a great deal to ask, and it would negate the argument that the lists are a wicked plot hatched by parties in smoke-filled rooms.

  105
  The question of gender balance was well dealt with by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who represents the constituency neighbouring mine. It is an important issue. It should be possible to insert a clause to provide that, in the interests of getting more women candidates elected, we should be allowed to disregard the equal opportunities legislation that gets in the way of such matters.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made a long speech. The main thrust of his argument was that the voters in Orkney would benefit in some way and that that was unfair. The proportional aspect comes from the list, so overall the votes will be much more equal in weight than they are now. It means that, for example, in Glasgow it will be worth voting something other than Labour. It is not healthy in any country, city or council for there to be such a huge preponderance of one party, as is the case in Glasgow. It is certainly not to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's party. A proportional system will introduce a little democracy into Glasgow.
  There is a long list of exclusions, as one or two other hon. Members have mentioned. Some of them are serious, and we should try to get that changed. Examples are broadcasting, equality legislation, abortion, rail transport and bus subsidies. I do not think that the Scottish Parliament will be able to subsidise the buses necessary to get people to Holyrood. Other exclusions include radioactive waste, pedestrian crossings, road safety, regulation of insolvency practitioners and other such people, licensing of theatres and so on. Another is betting and gaming—something dear to the hearts of many Scots. It will not be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. That is a serious matter. Another is mock auctions, so the cynical might say that elections would not be allowed. Another is coats of arms. Those of us who are snobs would not be allowed to get our coats of arms from the Scottish Parliament. I declare an interest as I am a deputy lord lieutenant. Lords lieutenants will come under Westminster, not the Scottish Parliament. Such matters could be much better—
  Mr. Gray: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Lyon is directly responsible to the Queen? Or is he suggesting that the Lord Lyon should be responsible to the new Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Gorrie: Yes. I thought that we lived in a democracy. Indeed, we are trying to create a democracy.
  The Scottish Parliament will control gas if it is carried in a boat, but Westminster will control gas if it is carried in a pipe. There are many foolishnesses in the list of exclusions.
  There is an unfortunate gulf between Ministers' excellent words and their actions. The Secretary of State said that it was very bad to tack Scottish legislation on to English Bills, but that is precisely what is happening with the Crime and Disorder Bill.
  The Secretary of State has made a personal decision on where the Parliament should be sited, and he has made a personal decision that the voting day for the Scottish Parliament should be the same one as for local elections. Either of those decisions may or may not have been good, but the manner in which they were made was not satisfactory. We do not want to create a benevolent despotism—because the Secretary of State is such an excellent man, despotism would surely be benevolent—as
  106
  that would not be satisfactory. The Scottish community should have had some say in where the Scottish Parliament sits. It is unacceptable for such a decision to be made by one person acting with a few advisers, regardless of whether the decision is good or bad.
  The Liberal Democrats want to work towards the genuine sovereignty of the people—not the sovereignty of Parliament—whereby the Scottish people will have a real say on what happens. We hope that the English will wake up and do the same.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Frank Roy: In my short time as an hon. Member, I have already had many memorable experiences. One incident that I shall almost certainly never forget occurred on 11 September 1997, when my wife and I attended our local polling station to vote in the Scottish referendum, and a first-time voter—a young lad—came up to us with a huge smile on his face. He said, "Mr. Roy, I was too young to vote for you on 1 May, but I'm voting today. It's my first vote, and I'll be voting yes-yes. Imagine me having a say in something as special as this."
  That young man typified young people in my constituency, who—like everyone else in my constituency—turned out to vote for a Scottish Parliament. In north Lanarkshire, where my constituency is situated, 123,063 people—82 per cent. of those who voted—voted for a Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, 72.2 per cent. of voters voted to give that Parliament tax-varying powers. The figures are remarkable. I looked up the total vote in Scotland for the Tories on 1 May, and it was only 30.7 per cent. Having listened to some of the speeches and arguments made by Conservative Members in this debate, I believe that it is remarkable that they achieved even that.
  The figures in north Lanarkshire were the third highest in Scotland, which makes us very proud. Such a result from that generation in my area is surprising, because those people have been disfranchised and disillusioned, having grown up during the worst excesses of our previous Government. For them, politics were a distant and sleazy matter, and they did not feel that they were a part of the process. Our young people had become alienated and were not stakeholders in our nation.
  On 1 May, the election of a new Labour Government who were committed to principles of equality, social justice and fairness signalled the beginning of the reconnection process for many of those young people, such as that young lad. On 11 September, young people in Scotland put their trust not only in politicians but in the people of Scotland to build a new Parliament for a new millennium and for a new generation.
  Why was the referendum so important? Why did young people connect so clearly with a Scottish Parliament? What did they see on 11 September that was different from what had come before? The difference was the relevance that a Scottish Parliament would have to their lives. It would affect their daily lives in a manner that Westminster never seemed to do. They were full of hopes and expectations.
  Those young people's hopes and expectations are not unjustified. Consider the powers that will be exercised by the new Scottish Parliament over the issues that directly affect each one of those young people in my constituency.

  107
  The powers will connect them and the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will have power over jobs and training. It will be an engine for job creation, revitalising communities that were devastated by 18 years of Tory mismanagement. In my area, we have lost so much, yet we still have much to offer, and I believe that the Scottish Parliament will harness that potential and the potential of that young lad.
  Building on the excellent work of Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament will build a dynamic, vibrant economy. We shall have no more of the skivvy schemes that the previous Government foisted on people such as that young lad. Instead, we shall have a new deal. We shall provide quality training for all our young people, giving them the skills that they will need to compete in a global economy.
  The Scottish Parliament will have power over education. In Scotland, we have always been proud of our education system, which develops the potential of each individual. With the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, we shall be able to bring that education process closer to the people, making it more responsive to the needs of individual Scots. There will be lifelong education from the cradle to the grave, enabling people to be all that they can be.
  The Scottish Parliament will also have power over housing. Youth homelessness is at an all-time high, but the Scottish Parliament will develop a close working relationship with local government, building on projects such as the rough sleepers initiative, to ensure that young people no longer live in danger on the streets of Scotland.
  In addition, the Scottish Parliament will have power over the environment. Young people care about the environment and are deeply conscious of the effect that today's living habits are having on the planet. They want to prepare for the future, and the Scottish Parliament will enable them to play a part in that planning process.
  Clearly, the powers of the Scottish Parliament will have a profound effect on young people, but the beauty of the Parliament is not only what it can do for young people, but the fact that it will give a voice to young people and what they can do for the Parliament. Politicians must enter into a dialogue with young people, working with them as we enter the new millennium and encouraging and enabling them to play a full part as proper and equal citizens—indeed, as stakeholders in their and our society.
  I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution is undertaking a review of the rules and Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament. I welcome that review and think that one of the key priorities of that process must be to provide a mechanism that gives young people and other groups that have been excluded from the political process a voice. The challenge of involving all our citizens is one that I know the Parliament will warmly embrace, and that is why I am willing to speak up on behalf of the young lad whom I met on 11 September and ask the House to support the Bill.
  9.22 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I know from considerable personal experience that it takes a long time to recover from a properly celebrated Scottish new year.
  Mr. McAllion: Is that what happened to the hon. Lady's arm?
  Mrs. Laing: I had better make it clear that I did not break my arm at new year.
  Today is 12 January: I do not believe that the many Scottish Labour Members who are absent today are absent because they are still recovering from the new year celebrations. It is clear that they no longer consider the United Kingdom Parliament worth attending. Presumably they are in Scotland, starting their campaign to follow their leader, the Secretary of State for Scotland, into the new Scottish Parliament.
  It must be a difficult decision: whether to do half a job in Edinburgh or half a job at Westminster. At present, there are 72 Scottish Members of Parliament representing the people of Scotland. Once the new Parliament has been set up, there will be 72 Scottish Members of Parliament here and another 72 in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Salmond: There are 73.
  Hon. Members: And another 59.
  Mrs. Laing: I am coming to them.
  This is another matter that has not been addressed in the Bill. The constituency Members of Parliament who are elected to Edinburgh will have significant responsibilities, but nobody has told us what the regional Members will do. To whom will they be accountable? The question has not been answered.
  I was vehemently opposed to the Bill in the first place. I accept, however, as most of my colleagues do, that the result of the referendum was clear, although the people who voted had not seen the Bill. I hope, as we are now to have a Parliament in Edinburgh, that many of my friends and family will be elected to it. [Laughter.] Hon. Members are wrong to assume that every member of my family is a member of the Conservative party.
  My main concern is not only for the people of Scotland, but for the people of Epping Forest and the rest of the United Kingdom. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have eloquently explained this evening, the Bill most certainly affects the whole of the United Kingdom. My concern is that whatever transpires, the Union should not be weakened. There is already too much factionalism. I see no conflict—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady has listened to everyone in the debate and she is now entitled to a hearing. It is bad manners to start holding discussions in the Chamber.
  Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I see no conflict between being a citizen of the United Kingdom, being British, being the representative of the constituency of Epping Forest in Essex, where I live and work, and having been born in Scotland of Scottish parents and brought up and educated there. I believe that

  109
  the conflicts arising from the Bill and the consequent operation of the Parliaments will cause conflict within the United Kingdom and will cause damage to the Union, to the Government and to the people of our country. By "our country", I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  Hon. Members of all parties who have listened to the debate must agree with me because all day we have been hearing arguments not only about the West Lothian question, but about which powers are to be reserved for this Parliament or that Parliament. Although the Secretary of State spoke about clause 27, he was not decisive about the supremacy of this Parliament. I ask him again to tell us whether the supremacy of this Parliament is protected in the Bill.
  We have heard arguments about the Barnett formula and about which part of the United Kingdom is a net contributor to public funds. We have heard arguments about the future representation of Scotland and of the United Kingdom in Europe. All those conflicts exist now. Are the Government suggesting that the Bill will resolve them?
  I am also concerned about the protection of the Scottish legal system. I have no interest to declare, but I am a qualified Scottish solicitor. I do not make any money from it. In fact, I never made much money from it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all right because my husband does.
  I shall raise detailed points in Committee. I am, however, concerned about the protection of the Scottish legal system. Clause 45, for example, is not clear about the appointment of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. We have not had an answer to the question whether the Lord Advocate is to be independent in terms of the administration of the Scottish courts and the Scottish Law Commission. The Bill does not say—another small point in which it is deficient.
  Schedule 6 is also unclear. It is all very well to give the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the power to hear appeals on devolution issues, but who will have a locus to bring such an appeal? Will an ordinary citizen be able to do so?
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): Read the Bill.
  Mrs. Laing: I have read the Bill. It is not clear whether an ordinary citizen will be able to bring an appeal on a devolution matter.
  My third concern is the conflict created by having two classes of Member of Parliament and MSP.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Laing: I am afraid that I do not have time.
  Here at Westminster, some Members will deal with all matters that concern their constituents and others will deal with only some matters that concern their constituents. They will not be equal. In Edinburgh, meanwhile, some MSPs will represent constituents and some will not. That is not a recipe for harmony.
  An interesting point has been raised about gender balance. We are talking about different classes of MP and of MSP. If some of the ideas that have been mentioned
  110
  this afternoon were put into practice and there were positive discrimination in favour of women, we would be creating second-class MSPs.
  Mr. Connarty: Why?
  Mrs. Laing: Because saying that a woman requires positive discrimination to be elected to an institution such as the Scottish Parliament is like saying that a man can go swimming on his own but a woman always has to wear waterwings. That is not true. Many women in all parties have been elected to this Parliament and done a very good job without having benefited from positive discrimination. Many able women in Scotland will put themselves forward as Members of the Scottish Parliament. They do not need positive discrimination. Gender balance is absolute nonsense.
  I have pointed out only some of the discrepancies and conflicts in the Bill. I urge hon. Members to urge the Government to iron out those conflicts before it is too late.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had a good first day's debate, which was illuminated by some of the speeches, although it was noticeable that, when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) was on his feet, the lights dimmed. We heard excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) which set out some of the agenda to be debated. The hon. Members for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) spoke of their enthusiasm for the new Parliament. It was obvious that, for many of them, it was the realisation of something for which they had campaigned for many years.
  The hon. Member for Pollok was so congratulatory of the Secretary of State and mentioned him in the company of so many illustrious Scots, that one thought that, in this Burns season, he would recite "The Immortal Memory". We were grateful that he did not. However, the hon. Gentleman raised some serious issues that the Minister will have to consider, such as the splitting of Orkney and Shetland.
  The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke of his party's quest for federalism in the United Kingdom and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) raised a number of transport issues. As usual, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made it clear that he saw the Bill as a step in the right direction—towards separatism. We must consider his remarks in that context. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) raised important questions about the regional Members of the Scottish Parliament and their relationship to constituency Members and the importance of the Union.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the issue of the stability of the United Kingdom under the proposals. I see many flaws in the federal structure for which he argued, but the point that the question of the stability of the

  111
  arrangements for the United Kingdom will not go away was well made by him and by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for South-East Cambridgeshire.
  The Conservative party, as a democratic party—
  Mr. Wallace: A democratic party?
  Mr. Heald: Yes, a democratic party—in fact, the world's oldest democratic party. We accept the result of the Scottish referendum, but it is right, as the Secretary of State said, that we should look at every eventuality when considering the proposals.
  I shall make three points and then ask the Minister six questions. [Interruption.] I think that six is enough to be going on with. He has only 15 minutes.
  The arrangements for the future must be stable. The point that they are not stable has been well made. The problem will not necessarily arise in the current Parliament, with a large Labour majority in England and in Scotland, but it will arise one day. The time will come when the Scots vote to decide an English issue in this Parliament. At that point, the tensions will be exacerbated. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is enjoying a conversation with his hon. Friends at the moment, asked about the Stormont experience. He should be aware that one of the issues that irritated the Labour party in the 1960s—Harold Wilson in particular—was that, on issues such as steel nationalisation, the Ulster Unionists, who had their own Stormont Parliament that dealt with steel issues, voted with the Conservatives and made it difficult for him to have his way. He said:
  "I would hope that Northern Ireland Members, who are here, and who are welcomed here, for the duties they have to perform on behalf of the United Kingdom in many matters affecting Northern Ireland, would consider their position in matters where we have no equivalent right in Northern Ireland."
  He also said:
  "I am sure the House will agree that there is an apparent lack of logic, for example, about steel, when Northern Ireland can, and presumably will, swell the Tory ranks tonight, when we have no power to vote on questions about steel in Northern Ireland"—[Official Report, 6 May 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1560–61.]
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman said that, if the votes of Scottish Members upset what would otherwise be an English majority, tremendous tensions might be produced. What tensions does he think were created in Scotland over the poll tax, when the votes of English Members imposed an unwanted tax on the people of Scotland against the majority wish of the Scottish representatives?
  Mr. Heald: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If it is right that Scottish votes could decide an English issue in this place, which would happen under the arrangements proposed, without English—or, indeed, Scottish—Members here having any right to decide Scottish matters, it is inevitable that a large group defying the wish of English Members on English issues could create far worse tensions than were created for Harold Wilson in the 1960s by a tiny number of Ulster Unionists.
  112
  The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland said that federalism is the answer. Creating federalism is his historic mission, but I see difficulties with it. It is not my policy or that of the Conservative party. It is for the Government to come up with a solution to the problem known as the West Lothian question. They recognise that there is a problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning have acknowledged it, but in the Bill the Government have failed even to attempt to solve it. That is not good enough. They should try to answer the question. I hope that they will meet that challenge. If they do not, the arrangements will not be stable or durable. The acid test of looking at every eventuality, which was set by the Secretary of State himself, will not be met.
  The second issue is the role of Scotland in Europe. As several hon. Members have said, nothing in the Bill protects Scotland's direct access to the European Council of Ministers. Promises were made in the White Paper that, for example, Scottish Executive Ministers would have a role and be able to speak for the UK in the Council. That would be a very difficult right to enshrine in law because, if there were differing political complexions in the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament, it would be unlikely that the UK Government would want a different political viewpoint to be put forward in the Council. I wonder whether that is why, having made such promises in the White Paper, nothing on that matter appears in the Bill. There must be some reason why the promises were made and are not being fulfilled.
  The other point in the White Paper about Scotland's representation in Europe was that there should be a requirement on the UK Government to take account of Scottish pre-legislative scrutiny. The White Paper offered that the UK Government would take account of scrutiny, but that is not referred to anywhere in the Bill. We are entitled to ask why the promises were made but are not being kept in the Bill.
  My third point is about funding. There is a lack of clarity on resources which threatens Scottish business, Scottish people and jobs. There is no commitment in the Bill, for example, to provide a particular level of funding for Scotland. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but clause 61 leaves it entirely to him to decide how much Scotland gets. It says:
  "such amounts as he may determine."
  He seems to take the duty very lightly. The clause gives the Parliament no satisfactory assurance of its money. It means that, if a general, UK-wide review of public spending concluded that Scotland received too much, the block grant could be reduced. It means that the UK Government could effectively cap the Scottish Parliament's expenditure. It also has implications for the tax-varying power.
  One of the speeches that most informed the debate was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He properly made the point that there is no provision for accountability to the UK Parliament. Although £14.6 billion is to be remitted to the Scottish Parliament, there is no mechanism for the Comptroller and Auditor General to look properly into it and see the documents. [Interruption.] if that is not correct, I would be happy to give way. It is certainly the view of my right

  113
  hon. Friend the Chairman of the PAC. Ministers will want to consider that issue and decide what proper accountability there should be.
  Mr. McLeish: What about clause 66?
  Mr. Heald: If the hon. Gentleman had heard my right hon. Friend's speech, he would have heard his analysis of that clause.
  What would the Scottish Parliament be saying if it were to use the tax-varying power to reduce the basic rate of income tax by 3p? It would be saying that it did not need all the block grant. On some occasions, the Scottish Parliament may want to express that. If it did, it would be unthinkable if the Treasury did not take account of such information and cut the grant the following year. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may laugh, but where in the Bill is the Scottish Parliament's financial position protected? Nowhere. The matter is entirely discretionary. The Secretary of State cannot laugh, and say, "Oh well, it will be all right in the end." He must do what he said that he would do: look to every eventuality and provide proper protection and provision in the Bill.
  I shall make one last point before I ask my questions. The level of finance is uncertain. One aspect of the tax-varying powers which has caused great concern to the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland—and to a number of business organisations such as the Retail Consortium—is that the tax-varying powers will not apply to corporation tax for the large companies, but will apply to the small business man, the sole trader or the partnership. They are asking for an exemption for small, unincorporated businesses so that they have a level playing field with the big boys. I ask the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate, to consider a plea that is being made on behalf of small businesses in Scotland, as clearly that matter should be addressed. There are a number of other issues concerning finance to which we will return in Committee if the amendment is not accepted.
  Perhaps I can ask a series of questions which summarise what I have been saying. Why does the Bill make no attempt to solve the West Lothian question? What are the Government's proposals to do that?
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The West Lothian question does not exist.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for regional government do not agree.
  Will Scottish Executive Ministers be able to represent the United Kingdom in the European Council of Ministers? If so, why does not the Bill say so? Why is there no provision in the Bill to secure a level of funding for Scotland and the Barnett formula? Will the Minister state his policy on business rates? Are they to be returned to local authorities' control, as the Labour manifesto suggested? Finally, will the Minister agree to exempt unincorporated businesses from the tax surcharge?
  Once those questions are answered, and once the points that I have made have been addressed, the House will be in a position to vote on the amendment. The answers so far have not been satisfactory.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): It falls to me to bring tonight's proceedings to a close, and I know that we will all want to return to this debate tomorrow. It is almost customary for individuals to say that we have had an interesting debate, and I will not disappoint anyone by not repeating that statement tonight.
  I have gained encouragement from seeing how the official Opposition have cut their cloth today. The overwhelming support of the voters on 11 September may have not only given them a better understanding of the views of the people of Scotland and the strength of support for our proposals, but forced them into a better understanding of the realities of the issues and the need for us to tackle the problems. Some of the issues are difficult and we make no pretence about that. However, after 18 long years of failing to recognise the problems, the Conservative party has engaged itself. It is to be congratulated on that.
  We firmly believe that the Bill is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am glad to see that that view is now shared by Opposition Members. The comments today have ranged from pro-federalist to anti-federalist; from those in favour of the Barnett formula to those against the Barnett formula. I hope that Opposition Members will get their position cleared up by the time we go into Committee.
  I enjoyed the speech by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said that he accepts the principle of the Bill. That is an amazing conversion. People are coming out of the woodwork, and saying that they have always accepted the principle of devolution. Where have they been for the past 18 years?
  The great problem with their conversion is that Opposition Members put so many obstacles in the way that it is almost impossible to see how they accept devolution in practice. I will try to deal with some of these obstacles as I go along. We have heard individuals say that they do not want this or that. Some have said that they do not want regional assemblies, but that is a matter for Conservative Members to debate elsewhere. We cannot let the failure or acceptance of other devolution problems south of the border distort the right of the Scottish people to their own devolved assembly and that is the important matter.
  The other argument that I was sceptical about was, "Hang on a minute. Okay, we accept the principle, just give us time and we'll come back with an even better solution." How many of us remember that? Have we not been there before? We hung on for 18 years and we are not going to hang on any longer. For that reason, we will push the legislation forward.
  I do not share the pessimistic view of the right hon. Member for Devizes, who sees a Bill full of problems, says that we cannot possibly have consensus and that there is no way that we will agree. Those might be the workings of the Conservative party, but that will not be the way it works in Scotland.
  Mr. Stephen Day: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. It should come as no surprise to him that the Conservative party recognises the expressed will of the people of Scotland. The Government do not seem to understand the problem

  115
  at the heart of this legislation. The constitutional implications go beyond Scotland and the Government's proposals contain no reference to the ultimate effect on the United Kingdom constitution. That is the important point and the hon. Gentleman seems totally to ignore it.
  Mr. Galbraith: Opposition Members keep saying that they are willing to accept the views of the Scottish people. I wish that they would not say it in such a patronising way, as though they were doing us a favour. We have expressed our views and we are entitled to them.
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that there are a number of ways of dealing with the matters that they have raised. Some will be best dealt with in Committee and some in the reply to the debate tomorrow.
  I must first tackle the question of sovereignty, about which the right hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had opposing views. The right hon. Gentleman said that absolute sovereignty must be written into the Bill. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that we should not do anything about it. We want to avoid both those ridiculous extremes. We propose devolution, not federalism or independence and it is written unambiguously and factually into clause 27(7) and that is all that is required.
  Mr. Heald: Surely the hon. Gentleman would admit that either this Parliament is sovereign or it is not.
  Mr. Galbraith: That is one of the other things that has amazed me in this debate. Perhaps it is because the Conservatives have come to the subject late in the day, unlike Labour Members, who have been at it all these years. Neither the Liberal Democrats nor ourselves have ever disputed the fact that this Parliament should remain sovereign. It is written into clause 27(7).
  Mr. Salmond: It is certainly in dispute here. Did the hon. Gentleman not sign a declaration of Scottish sovereignty, or perhaps I am misleading myself? I remember such a declaration of sovereignty, which was signed by the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrat party and with which I agreed. Clause 27(7) is not a moderate but an extreme position. It gives the United Kingdom Parliament a power that is unaffected even by devolved matters. On which devolved matters should the United Kingdom Parliament legislate after the Scottish Parliament is established?
  Mr. Galbraith: The reason for the inclusion of that provision has just been clearly illustrated. There are two problems. One is that Conservative Members have only just engaged in the debate and do not have the answers. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows, we have been through that issue, but he keeps asking the same questions and getting the same reply. Sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, but the hon. Gentleman must not assume that they will exercise it only in the way that he wants. They will exercise it in whatever way they choose, so please let him not ask that question again. It is the third time that it has been answered for him and that ought to be enough, even for him.
  Mrs. Ewing: Surely the point is that we must accept that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people. We are not
  116
  arguing the case assuming that everyone necessarily agrees with our viewpoint. We are challenging the Government to tell us whether they will accept the sovereign wishes of the Scottish people.
  Mr. Galbraith: I said that I was willing to answer that three times for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, but I should not have to answer it a fourth time for the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Ancram: The Minister has been very patient on the question of sovereignty. He accused us of extremism, but I think that he will accept that clause 27(7) is lifted word for word from the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The phrase that I used in my speech was taken from the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I would have thought that those were very good precedents, and I do not see why he is not prepared to accept both.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making. Is he saying that the provision is adequate or inadequate? Does he want anything more? The Bill does what he wants, and I do not know what he is carping about.
  The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) wanted some details about electoral arrangements. We will of course discuss it in Committee, but we intend to introduce proposals requiring a deposit of £500 for a constituency and £1,000 for the regional candidates' list. He also asked whether the power of intervention by the Secretary of State in clause 33 would be subject to judicial review. The answer is yes. It is implicit in the Bill that the Secretary of State's decision to intervene must be taken only on reasonable grounds, which would always be open to judicial challenge.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asked whether concordats could be agreed before the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. The answer is no. Preparations can be made, but they can be signed only between the Scottish Parliament and Ministers here. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. He also asked about broadcasting. The White Paper made it clear that broadcasting is a reserved matter, but paragraph 2.11 said that it would be possible for the Scottish Parliament to invite various people to give evidence and discuss the issue. That has always been the position: no one can be required to come along on a matter that is not reserved.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Galbraith: No, I have only four minutes left.
  Ms Cunningham: It is on that specific matter.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry, but I really have to move on.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also said that there were far too many reserved powers. There is always dispute about where the line should fall. We took the view that it was in Scotland's interest to reserve powers in certain areas, but that can be discussed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman also asked about entertainment in cinemas. The health and safety regulations are of course reserved as they are currently. He talked about the

  117
  regulation of film and video classification. I think that we all agree that that would best be left on a United Kingdom basis. There is a UK market, and that is the best way to handle the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) asked about transport. I can assure him that Strathclyde passenger transport authority will certainly have the powers and receive the moneys.
  The right hon. Member for—how is it pronounced?
  Mr. David Davis: Haltemprice and Howden.
  Mr. Galbraith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. He pronounced Ochil wrongly, so I think that he will excuse me for getting his constituency wrong. He wanted to ensure that there was proper scrutiny of the Scottish Executive. I could not agree more. It is right and proper that the Parliament should determine how it holds the Executive to account.
  The Bill sets out the framework—it is only a framework—for the minimum requirement that will have to be laid down for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on such matters. It must provide for the Executive to prepare accounts, which must be published, so they will be available to the House. It can also provide for the designation of accounting officers. Clause 66 provides that the head of the Parliament's audit service must be independent of both the Parliament and the Executive. In addition, the Secretary of State will be required to account to the House for the Scottish Parliament's expenditure. The Treasury will appoint an accounting officer for that expenditure under current arrangements. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman would like more supervision and control, but that is not devolution. That is the system that we have in place to try to deal with this.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) raised a very important point about whether the Scottish Parliament will be able to subsidise buses down to Holyrood, and maintained that it will not. I realise that that is an important point to him. I am happy to reassure him that bus policy does not include bus subsidies, but that a bus will be subsidised for him to be able to take a trip down to Holyrood. I am sure that he will be very pleased on that matter.
  Just before you blow the half-time whistle, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Children's Radio Channel
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the debate this evening. It is perhaps appropriate that it is the first Adjournment debate of the new term, although it is a bit late in the day for "Listen with Mother".
  I should first thank the organisations that have given me support and campaigned on this issue, most prominently the Children's 2000 campaign, and Susan Stranks, who will be known to hon. Members who are older than me as the former presenter of "Magpie", a children's television programme. She is very well placed to speak on this subject.
  I thank the Radio Authority and the BBC for their advice and information, and thank Ministers for their guidance on this matter. I should also mention in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who in the previous Parliament, as chairman of the all-party parenting committee, put this item on the agenda.
  My argument in favour of a dedicated national children's radio channel is fourfold. First, radio is a medium of the future. The digital revolution that is starting apace in this country will affect radio as much as—if not more than—television and other media. Secondly, radio, unlike other electronic media, is accessible to everyone who can afford a radio set in their house. Thirdly, at the moment, the children of our country, who make up 20 per cent. of the population, are not serviced adequately by current radio provision. Fourthly, and most important, children—particularly very young children—would and could benefit enormously from greater provision of a comprehensive children's radio service.
  Radio unlocks the imagination of children in a way that visual media—television and computers—cannot. There are strong arguments, from educationists and from psychologists, to back up that point of view. Radio provides great support, and has done so for teachers in schools for many years. It also provides support—this is often overlooked—to parents who are struggling to settle their children, especially in the evening. Most important from the child's point of view, radio is great fun. It also helps the child to develop a sense of confidence and identity.
  On the digital revolution that is taking place in broadcasting, the national franchises for digital radio will begin to be advertised in March this year. The awards for commercial radio franchises will be made in September. By the end of the year, it is likely that up to eight, possibly 10, new channels will be broadcast nationally. Following that, many other channels will be available, both commercial and BBC, locally and regionally.
  Radio will become interactive. Children's interests should be taken into account at this stage of the development of digital radio if they are to be given a fair crack of the whip. Radio not only has a great future, but it is very cheap. It is much cheaper to produce than television, and access is cheap. It is estimated that the average household in the UK already has five radio sets,

  119
  and few families do not have access to radio. Despite the recent rapid growth in the number of computers available in both schools and homes, access to radio compares favourably with television. To coin a phrase, radio is a medium for the many, not the few.
  The problem is that digital radio has yet to take off in terms of the number of sets in people's homes, which is why the argument has been put forward in favour of using the analogue channels that are currently available. However, there is no reason why schools could not be provided relatively quickly, and certainly more cheaply compared with other media, with digital radio sets.
  Children are being served by neither public sector nor commercial radio. The BBC's annual report lists by category the number of hours broadcast on radio per year for each service. Of the 42,500 hours of radio broadcast on five national channels last year, only 403 were dedicated specifically to schools radio. The number of hours dedicated to children's entertainment was even lower.
  Television is extremely well serviced. It has good education and entertainment programmes, but it has been subject to intense debate and scrutiny. The Broadcasting Standards Commission report published in December examined the effects of television on children. In her introduction to that report, Lady Howe said:
  "Children are less able to make their voices heard and their cause often has to be championed through the adult. Often this adult is the parent, responsible for the child's well-being and concerned for its development.
  It is my belief that children have the right to access a varied and diverse diet of programming."
  If that is true of television, it is also true of radio.
  Of the 220 commercial channels currently provided throughout the UK, none is dedicated to children's services. There is broad support for the idea of enhanced children's radio services. Not surprisingly, children's charities such as Barnardo's, Mencap and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have strongly supported the idea. Parent groups, teachers' unions and educationists have also signed up. Local government educationists and, I notice, the two Government advisers—Professor Brighouse and Chris Woodhead—have also given their support. Some might say that it is the only matter on which they have agreed in the education debate. So the support is there.
  Less well known is the growing body of academic opinion from educational psychologists about the clear benefits for children's education of the radio and sound tape media. For example, Professor Pam Enderby at Sheffield university's speech therapy unit has argued strongly for the benefits of learning language and literacy from radio as opposed to the visual media of television and computers. Sally Ward of the speech language centre in Sheffield has listed the educational benefits of radio.
  The imagination which radio brings out in children is foremost. That is essential for language development and literacy, because of the relationship between the spoken media and literacy. That enables the child to develop a greater attention span, whereas the visual media, by their nature, often serve to cut short a child's attention span.
  Parents and others complain that children do not listen and will not sit still. Like the academic studies of this issue, I blame the television and computer screen. Radio has the reverse effect.
  120
  Despite its shortcomings, the BBC has recognised the educational opportunities of radio. Currently, 84 per cent. of primary schools order the BBC's school tapes. They would benefit enormously from a more comprehensive provision broadcast directly to them.
  Sally Ward from the Sheffield centre has listed other advantages, such as teaching English as a second language, and teaching blind children and children with special needs. Radio is especially beneficial to hospital-bound children. It provides back-up to parents and carers while they are looking after children. Muslim girls could also benefit, because, for cultural reasons, they do not have access to mainstream activities outside the school curriculum. Homework clubs could also benefit enormously, according to Sally Ward's research.
  In my opinion, the BBC has not done nearly enough. It is our major public sector broadcaster. Its chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, in his introduction to last year's annual report, re-emphasised the ethos of public service broadcasting in the digital age. He said:
  "As the BBC enters the digital age, some fear that it may lose sight of its core purposes amid the excitement of new services and commercial ventures. Let me be clear. Despite all the changes … the BBC is, and will remain, a public service broadcaster."
  Despite that, children, who represent 20 per cent. of the population, are excluded from BBC provision.
  Arguments about the failure of children's radio in the past do not hold water. Radio 5's initial launch saw some increase in children's services, but the general public, teachers and children were not aware of them, because they were not promoted. In any event, the ratings for radio under public service broadcasting should not be the be-all and end-all, as Sir Christopher Bland said. I am told by the BBC that there are never more than 9,000 people listening to classical music on Radio 3 through the night. As we enter the digital age, with a greater number of specialist channels, the argument about ratings for the public service sector becomes weaker.
  I have emphasised the need for a children's channel. In the digital age, parts of channels rather than full channels will become the norm. We should build support for that now; the BBC is considering it, and should develop it further. There is support in the House for that idea.
  In the past, many hon. Members signed the early-day motion bemoaning the plight of "Children's Hour" and "Listen with Mother". The BBC's ethos is that of a public sector broadcaster, and it is in its interest to provide a children's service. When the World Service is attacked or under threat, politicians and the BBC rush to its defence. How much stronger the BBC would be if it had a children's channel.
  Commercial radio has the possible use of sections of the analogue channels. We know that 225 has technical difficulties, but perhaps regional use and local, short-term licences could be considered. We also know that, with the advent of digital, at least four national channels will be available. I would urge the Radio Authority and its members to look at the strong option of providing these opportunities for children's radio.
  The commercial arguments that have dogged the campaign in the past do not hold water, especially bearing in mind the fact that the criteria for the award of the franchise involve the totality of the multiplex, not just individual channels within it. Indeed, variety on the multiplex is a requirement of the award of the licences.

  121
  There are many opportunities for children's broadcasting. The millennium dome as a centre for children's activities and for the digital revolution could provide a superb platform for children's broadcasting. The new opportunities funding scheme being launched by the Government for school support could provide a source of money for research, for testing and—perhaps in the long term—for a sustained radio channel in partnership with the commercial sector.
  Radio is cheap and accessible to all. It is a great educational tool. Radio helps youngsters' imagination and helps them develop a sense of identity. Radio, in short, is the best medium for children. Indeed, it is the best medium for most people; and it is the least expensive to access. I urge the Government to consider these ideas. I urge the Radio Authority and the BBC to improve children's radio services. The Government's quite proper efforts to improve literacy and numeracy among youngsters could be given a tremendous boost by radio.
  Most of all, radio is available to all children. The stories to which we listen as children stay with us for the rest of our lives. The personal and educational development that radio affords sustains us through life. I urge Members and Ministers—I thank them for their support thus far—to think about these ideas, and about how we can co-ordinate children's radio in future.
  10.16 pm
  The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on securing a debate on a national radio station for children, and on playing out his case so effectively. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I both recognise the important role that radio can play in education and in the development and entertainment of children, the more so because of the way in which radio stimulates the imagination quite differently from television—and perhaps more effectively.
  The Government and the Radio Authority are well aware of the support in Parliament and from organisations outside the House for a national children's radio channel. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in his representations on the issue, on which we have corresponded and about which I have answered a number of questions in the House.
  As I explained in answer to a question from my hon. Friend on 10 November, the Government have received a number of representations on children's radio, including representations from Children 2000 and from Miss Susan Stranks, with whom my right hon. Friend has corresponded. My hon. Friend was uncharacteristically—and I suspect inadvertently—unchivalrous about her. One does not have to be very old to recall her excellent career in broadcasting. I fear that I am old enough to have been brought up listening to "Uncle Mac" and "Dick Barton, Special Agent", long before Miss Stranks was even a gleam in broadcasting's eye.
  My hon. Friend's debate gives me a useful opportunity to set out the Government's position for a wider audience, and I am grateful to him for giving the House the chance to explore the issue in greater depth. It might be helpful if I set out what scope the Government have to determine the character of radio services, and their policy on the use of the powers at their disposal in the light of the intense demand for the spectrum available for the provision of radio services. I shall then consider the BBC issues that my hon. Friend raised.
  122
  As my hon. Friend knows, the Broadcasting Act 1990 established the Radio Authority to license and regulate the commercial radio sector, under the broad objectives set out in the statute, to increase diversity and choice of output in the independent radio sector.
  The 1990 Act also requires the authority to license two national stations of a particular character. One has an output that is predominantly speech-based, and the other is a music station broadcasting mainly non-pop music. The Secretary of State has the power to revise or add to those categories of national service by order. Therefore, it would be quite within the Government's power to require the Radio Authority to secure the provision of a national station aimed at children.
  The Radio Authority has already licensed three national services—Classic FM, Talk Radio and Virgin—and there is no further spectrum available on which the authority could construct a fourth analogue national service. Last year, the authority examined the feasibility of using a long wave frequency that was reassigned to it by the previous Administration from the BBC as the basis of a fourth national service.
  The authority consulted extensively on the prospective use of the frequency—225 kHz long wave. As my hon. Friend knows, the authority concluded last month that it would not be practicable to deploy that frequency for a fourth analogue national radio service. That conclusion was reached in the light of objections from other European countries to the proposed UK service, which would cause interference to their existing radio services.
  As there is no possibility of a fourth national analogue commercial radio service, the Government have not considered directing the authority to license a national analogue station of a particular character. As my hon. Friend says, we are entering the digital age in broadcasting, and the Government have given careful consideration to whether to use the powers in the Broadcasting Act 1996 which enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to direct that digital national programme services be of a particular character.
  Plans are well advanced for the launch of national and local digital radio services. The Government think that the best chance of making digital radio a success would be to include a mixture of established and exciting new services to encourage the purchase of digital receivers. The Radio Authority plans to invite applications shortly to operate the national independent digital radio multiplex.
  Digital technology has the potential to enable a broad range of different national and local radio services. However, the availability of radio spectrum will be limited at the launch of digital radio. There will be sufficient spectrum to enable only two national digital multiplexes at the launch of digital radio—one for the BBC and one for commercial radio. Using the current technology, we think that there will be capacity on each national multiplex for between six and eight digital sound programme services.
  The BBC, which has been broadcasting digital radio services since 1995, simulcasts its existing five national services, and has been trialling a variety of new services, including live broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and extended sports broadcasting. The Government will shortly formally offer the existing three national commercial radio stations guaranteed capacity on the national commercial multiplex to simulcast their existing services.

  123
  Under the provisions of the 1996 Act, my right hon. Friend has the power to direct the Radio Authority to require that the holder of the national commercial multiplex licence provides national digital programme services of a particular character. Therefore, it is in his power to require the national commercial multiplex licensee to include a new national radio service for children.
  I understand my hon. Friend's excellent case for making such a direction, but at this stage the Government's priority must be the successful launch of digital radio. With only one national commercial multiplex initially available, it is important that the commercial radio sector determines the mix of programming that is most likely to encourage consumers to purchase digital receivers. If the industry thinks that a children's service will do that job for them, the Government will, of course, welcome the introduction of such a service.
  The Government are not persuaded, at this early stage in the development of digital radio, that it would be wise to fetter the discretion of the Radio Authority and restrict the freedom of manoeuvre of the radio industry by imposing a particular channel, such as a national children's channel, on the sole commercial national multiplex that will be available on the launch of digital radio. With only a maximum of eight programme services available, three of which will be taken up by simulcast of the existing analogue services, such a direction would mean that half the national multiplex would be filled by programming dictated by Government and not by the commercial sector, which will have to make the investment in the new technology.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep the issue under close review as digital radio services develop. I hope that, in due course, more spectrum will be found to enable the expansion of digital radio services. At that point, the Government will assess whether a direction on the characteristics of any further national services should be made.
  However, I must make it clear that the Government's general approach to the future of broadcasting and to the expansion in service provision that digital technology will enable, is to lighten the regulatory burden on the industry and to minimise Government direction and intervention. As the number of digital radio services increases, the ability to cater for all tastes and interests—including children's programming—is facilitated, and the case for Government intervention decreases slightly. As I have said, however, we will keep the issue under close review in consultation with the Radio Authority, listening to the views of people such as my hon. Friend, who feel strongly and passionately about the issue.
  Organisations wishing to provide children's programmes may already apply to the Radio Authority for new analogue local radio licences, and I understand that
  124
  two applicants for the last London FM licence proposed to broadcast children's services. In the same way, such organisations may negotiate with potential bidders for both the national and local commercial multiplexes to offer children's programming.
  My hon. Friend suggests that the BBC should use the capacity it has been given for digital radio services to launch a children's service on digital radio. As he is aware, editorial decisions are a matter wholly for the BBC, and it is not within my power to direct that the BBC carries particular services. Nor would I want to interfere with the principles that have long governed the relationship between successive Administrations and the BBC.
  As my hon. Friend knows, on 30 July, the BBC proposed changes to Radio 4. That followed extensive consultation and research. Since the announcement of the schedule changes, I understand that the BBC has been in contact with 25,000 listeners through the BBC radio helpline and viewer and listener correspondence. The current Radio 4 schedule has only one half-hour slot that is aimed specifically at children—at 7 pm on Sunday. That makes a total of 25.5 hours a year of children's programming. I understand that the slot attracts 21,000 children, and that the BBC plans to discontinue that slot under the new schedule.
  BBC governors are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the corporation meets its obligation and pledges to audiences, among which is the requirement, set out in the royal charter and agreement, to include a high standard of original programmes for children and young people. The governors have taken a keen interest in the proposed changes to Radio 4, and are aware that their role is to ensure that the public interest is properly served. I am sure that Sir Christopher Bland, the board of governors, of which he is chairman, the BBC's radio management, and Mr. James Boyle, who is charged with the task of making the changes, will reflect on the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend.
  I reassure my hon. Friend that I recognise the importance of high-quality broadcasting, on both television and radio, in the broad education and development of children across a range of age groups. Digital technology has enormous potential and, with an open mind, we shall continue to explore with the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority ways in which that aspect of broadcasting can be developed in the digital age.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue in the House, and for enabling me to set out the Government's position. I suspect that all those who care about the future of radio and the future development of children will also be grateful to him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend existing planning guidance to planning authorities to ensure that the design and layout of new residential areas is more acceptable to existing communities; and if he will make a statement on the representations he has received on this subject. [22204]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Revised Planning Policy Guidance note 1 encourages careful and early consideration to design issues which can help make proposals for development acceptable to local communities. Local authorities are encouraged to promote good design and reject bad design. The Government intend to build on this guidance by publishing two good practice guides next year—one a general guide to design in the planning system; the other a companion guide to Design Bulletin 32 (Residential Roads and Footpaths) which has a major influence on the layout of residential areas. I also continue to emphasise the importance of good design in speeches at suitable opportunities, most recently at the Royal Fine Arts Commission Seminar.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 372, what percentage of European Funds under objective 5B was spent in the less-favoured areas of the North of England in (a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) 1996; and what is the date when this funding will finish. [22605]

  Angela Eagle
  The objective 5B funding allocated to the Northern Uplands programme, which should operate from 1994 to the end of 1999, is £84 million. However, since the European Commission did not approve the programme until December 1994, no funds were spent during that year. The amount spent under the Northern Uplands programme in 1995 and 1996 is as follows:

  Year

  Structural funds spent (£ million)

  Percentage of total allocation

  1995

  2.07

  2.46

  1996

  8.34

  10.07

  Total

  12.53

  Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposals in the White 2
  Paper on Freedom of Information on the modus operandi of the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment. [22632]

  Angela Eagle
  No formal assessment has yet been made on the impact of the proposals in the White Paper on Freedom of Information. However, under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, the Secretary of State already has a statutory duty to place a summary of the details of applications for consent to release genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on a public register, which is kept by my Department and in the regional offices of the Environment Agency. Summaries are also placed on the Internet.

  Further, the regulations require applicants to advertise their proposed releases in newspapers circulating in the area where the release is proposed. Concerned residents may contact either the companies or the Department for further information and have an opportunity to write to the Secretary of State commenting on the application. My Department will make the full application available on request, except any information which is agreed to be commercially confidential. The advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) is also placed on the public register after they have reviewed applications for consent. My Department publishes newsletters twice a year, an ACRE annual report, technical guidance notes and research reports.

  My Department and ACRE are currently considering ways of increasing the transparency of how decisions on the granting of consents are made. We will take into account the White Paper on Freedom of Information and the conclusions of the National Biotechnology Conference held in March 1997.

  Primates Imports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many primates were imported from Indonesia in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 to date. [22396]

  Angela Eagle
  Fifty captive bred Crab-eating Macaques(Macaca fascilularis) were imported in 1996, and a further eight specimens of this species were imported in 1997.

  Housing Developments (West Sussex)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against his decision to reject the independent inspector's conclusion concerning the limits to housing development in West Sussex. [22579]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has written to express his concern about the effect of the Direction. I am not aware that any other representations have been received either for or against my right hon. Friend's decision.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many cases of inspectors reporting on the limits to housing development he has(a) upheld the conclusion, (b) reduced the limits and (c) increased the limits. [22578]
  3
  Mr. Raynsford
  Land is allocated for housing development through the development plan system. Both the panel, which reports following an Examination in Public into Structure Plans, and the Inspector, who reports following a Public Local Inquiry into a Unitary Development or Local Plan, report directly to the local authority concerned.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet local authority and parliamentary representatives of West Sussex to discuss his declaration that the method or conclusion of the independent inspector into the limits to housing developments in the county was flawed. [22576]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend is considering the hon. Member's request and I will advise the hon. Member of his decision in due course.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much time he spent considering the inspector's report into the limits to housing development in West Sussex. [22577]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The report was published on 25 June 1997 and has also been thoroughly considered within the Department.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the site which will be used for the Millennium Experience has been decontaminated; what contaminants were found on the site; and what checks have been carried out on(a) the decontaminated areas and (b) the areas which were not decontaminated since decontamination was completed. [22723]

  Angela Eagle
  The site to be used for the Millennium Experience forms part of the Greenwich peninsula site. It has been used for a variety of industrial purposes, including gas production, over a long period. Soil contamination has resulted from these industrial uses. Reclamation work has therefore been carried out on the whole of the land owned by English Partnerships on the Peninsula, including the site to be used for the Millennium Experience. The nature of this work varies according to the mix of contaminants in any one area.

  Following very extensive site investigation and risk analysis, British Gas, as the original polluter, has completed the statutory remediation works. English Partnerships and the New Millennium Experience Co., Ltd. are carrying out further remediation works to a standard suitable for the site's intended use.

  All aspects of the remediation works have been carried out to statutory health and safety standards and the works have been monitored by both the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Department of the London Borough of Greenwich. Following remediation, the site is subject to regular monitoring of groundwater samples on a continuing basis.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total area which will be used for the Millennium Experience. [22722]
  4
  Angela Eagle
  The total area of the Greenwich Peninsula is 119 hectares, of which 66 per cent. (81 hectares) is allocated to the Millennium Experience.

  Speed Limits (Residential Areas)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to create zones with 10 mph speed limits in residential areas. [22721]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Speed limits in residential areas are a matter primarily for local highway authorities, but we are considering the principles involved. We would need to be sure that there were adequate means of enforcing limits, whether by physical measures or otherwise and that, on the whole, any expenditure would be effective by comparison with other measures which enhance safety and encourage environmentally friendly transport.

  European Air Safety Authority
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government's involvement in the establishment of a single European Air Safety Authority. [22670]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have participated fully in the work in the European Community on proposals to set up a European Aviation Safety Authority. EU Transport Ministers have already agreed that the Community should be part of a new European Aviation Safety Authority, which will help to ensure proper safety standards in air transport in the whole of Europe, not just the European Union. During the United Kingdom Presidency we shall seek to ensure that the plans for the new body, and the Community's role in it, are taken forward.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22685]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has 1,105 secure cycle spaces.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities with responsibility for education where the increase in revenue support grant adjusted for changes in nursery vouchers funding and increased NNDR is less than the amount that has been passported through the capping regime to raise standards in schools. [22284]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Deputy Prime Minister, in his statement to the House outlining the Government's proposals for the 1998–99 RSG Settlement, set out the proposed levels of Total Standard Spending and Aggregate External Support. In his statement he made it clear that the proposals reflected the previous Government's plans to increase the level of Council Tax by 7 per cent. This effect on council tax was inherent in the public expenditure totals set by the last Government
  5
  and implied a reduction in the level of central Government support for local authority expenditure. Although the Government have sought to limit the pressures on local council tax payers by a number of means, including the full funding of the extra £835 million for education, the shift from central Government support to the council tax means that for most authorities increases in Standard Spending Assessments will exceed the increase in central Government support.

  Consequently, for most education authorities the difference between the provisional 1998–99 SSA element for education and the adjusted equivalent amount for 1997–98 (ie the amount taken into account in determining whether the permitted increase in budget should be above the standard percentage for the class) exceeds the difference between the sum of the provisional 1998–99 RSG and NNDR entitlements and the sum of the 1997–98 entitlements, adjusted for changes in responsibility and function.

  The authorities with an increase in education SSA higher than the increase in external support are:

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  Bexley

  Bolton

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell Forest

  Bradford

  Brent

  Brighton and Hove

  Bristol

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Camden

  Cheshire

  City of London

  Cornwall

  Croydon

  Cumbria

  Darlington

  Derby

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Durham

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Gloucestershire

  Greenwich

  6

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampshire

  Harrow

  Havering

  Herefordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Isle of Wight Council

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kent

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kirklees

  Lambeth

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Leicestershire

  Lewisham

  Lincolnshire

  Manchester

  Medway Towns

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Newbury

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Norfolk

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire

  North Somerset

  North Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Reading

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Richmond upon Thames

  Rutland

  Salford

  Shropshire

  Solihull

  Somerset

  South Gloucestershire

  South Tyneside

  Southampton

  Southwark

  7

  Staffordshire

  Stockton on Tees

  Stoke on Trent

  Suffolk

  Sunderland

  Surrey

  Sutton

  The Wrekin

  Torbay

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Wandsworth

  Warrington

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Westminster

  Wiltshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wirral

  Wokingham

  Worcestershire

  York.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which companies have(a) been registered and (b) been refused registration as accredited reprocessors for the purpose of issuing packaging waste recovery notes under the Producer Responsibility (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [22281]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are responsible for the accreditation of reprocessors under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. The Agencies register each site individually rather than registering companies, and the statistics following reflect this.

  The most recent figures available from the Environment Agency, accurate for 24 December 1997, show that 48 sites have received accreditation, 64 have been refused and 2 are pending awaiting the modification of reprocessing and/or administration systems. The remainder, some 90, are still being processed.

  The list of applications which includes their company names and the status of the site (agreed, refused or pending) runs to some thirty five pages. I have therefore placed a copy in the House of Commons Library.

  Under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, there are three kinds of operation which are classified as reprocessing (definitions are taken from Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste):
  recycling, ie "the reprocessing in a production process of the waste materials for the original purpose or for other purposes including organic recycling but excluding energy recovery";
  8
  organic recycling, ie "the aerobic (composting) or anaerobic (biomethanisation) treatment, under controlled conditions and using micro-organisms, of the biodegradable parts of packaging waste, which produces stabilized organic residues of methane";
  energy recovery, ie "the use of combustible packaging waste as a means to generate energy through direct incineration with or without waste but with the recovery of the heat".

  The rejection of an application is usually the result of one of the following situations:

  (i) the process concerned does not count as reprocessing as defined above;

  (ii) the site does not reprocess packaging waste;

  (iii) the site is not yet capable of reprocessing packaging waste.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 493, if he will place in the Library copies of the contingency plans to respond to accidents during the air and sea carriage of MOX nuclear fuel. [22299]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not hold copies of the contingency plans referred to in my previous answer, which are normally prepared and held by transporters of radioactive material, and I am therefore not able to place a copy of the plans in the Library.

  The plans prepared by BNFL in the case of sea and air transport of MOX nuclear fuel are subject to a security classification and I am informed that they are not prepared to release copies of such plans. My hon. Friend may wish to approach BNFL directly in order to have sight of the contingency plans that he wishes to see.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 492, if he will place in the Library the Fourth Report of the Standing Working Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material of DGXVII, once it becomes available to his Department. [22289]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Fourth Report from the Standing Working Group to the Commission on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials in the European Union has recently been submitted to the Commission and will be submitted to the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the regions. When the report becomes available a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set up an inquiry into the cost of providing the same standard of services in rural and in urban authorities for the services covered by the Other County Services element of SSAs. [21941]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Possible changes to SSA formulae are discussed with local government in the SSA Sub-Group of the Settlement Working Group. Whether any work on the costs incurred by rural and urban authorities in providing services covered by the county level "All Other Services" SSA formula is carried out this year depends
  9
  upon the priorities of local and central government when the Sub-Group's 1998 work programme is agreed later in the spring.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will commission research into the factors which influence the need for and the cost of social services for the 16 to 64 years age group and incorporate the results of this research into the way SSAs are calculated. [21942]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The need for revenue expenditure on social services for people aged 18 to 64 is covered by the "Other Social Services" SSA. Changes to this formula have been proposed for 1998–99, following a review of the "Other Social Services Index". Whether any further work on this particular SSA formula is carried out this year depends upon the priorities of local and central government when the work programme of the SSA Sub-Group of the Settlement Working Group is agreed later in the spring.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will commission research into factors which determine a child's special educational needs and incorporate the results of such research into the construction of SSAs. [21943]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department of Education and Employment is currently conducting a review of the indicator of additional educational needs used in Standard Spending Assessments. The review is intended to report in time for consideration before decisions are made about 1999–2000 SSAs.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in rank order the SSA provision for 1997–98 and 1998–99 per head of population for each county council in England and Wales and give the average county figure for each year. [21944]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures for shire counties are shown in the following tables. The provisional 1998–99 and settlement 1997–98 Standard Spending Assessment figures are not comparable owing to changes in local government responsibility and in local government reorganisation affecting Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Devon, Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire in 1998. There are no equivalent Welsh county councils for funding purposes following local government reorganisation in 1996.

  1997–98 Standard Assessment per head of resident population for Shire counties

  Local authority

  Standard Spending Assessment (£/head)

  Class/rank

  Northumberland

  664

  1/35

  Kent

  656

  2/35

  Hertfordshire

  641

  3/35

  Lancashire

  633

  4/35

  Bedfordshire

  631

  5/35

  Cornwall

  628

  6/35

  Durham

  626

  7/35

  Essex

  625

  8/35

  Northamptonshire

  621

  9/35

  Cumbria

  620

  10/35

  10

  Local authority

  Standard Spending Assessment (£/head)

  Class/rank

  Lincolnshire

  616

  11/35

  Nottinghamshire

  614

  12/35

  Shropshire

  611

  13/35

  Devon

  610

  14/35

  East Sussex

  610

  15/35

  Berkshire

  609

  16/35

  Cheshire

  607

  17/35

  Buckinghamshire

  605

  18/35

  North Yorkshire

  603

  19/35

  Suffolk

  592

  20/35

  Norfolk

  592

  21/35

  Cambridgeshire

  588

  22/35

  Gloucestershire

  584

  23/35

  West Sussex

  584

  24/35

  Staffordshire

  582

  25/35

  Somerset

  579

  26/35

  Derbyshire

  574

  27/35

  Hereford and Worcester

  569

  28/35

  Wiltshire

  569

  29/35

  Leicestershire

  566

  30/35

  Dorset

  561

  31/35

  Oxfordshire

  560

  32/35

  Warwickshire

  559

  33/35

  Hampshire

  558

  34/35

  Surrey

  554

  35/35

  English Shire Counties

  602

  1998–99 Provisional Standard Spending Assessment per head of resident population for Shire counties

  Local authority

  Standard Spending Assessment (£/head)

  Class/rank

  Northumberland

  686

  1/34

  Kent

  684

  2/34

  Hertfordshire

  681

  3/34

  Lancashire

  671

  4/34

  Bedfordshire

  668

  5/34

  Cornwall

  659

  6/34

  Northamptonshire

  659

  7/34

  Cumbria

  659

  8/34

  Durham

  658

  9/34

  Essex

  650

  10/34

  Lincolnshire

  645

  11/34

  East Sussex

  643

  12/34

  North Yorkshire

  632

  13/34

  Buckinghamshire

  631

  14/34

  Devon

  624

  15/34

  Cheshire

  623

  16/34

  Staffordshire

  620

  17/34

  Nottinghamshire

  618

  18/34

  Suffolk

  616

  19/34

  Shropshire

  615

  20/34

  Gloucestershire

  613

  21/34

  Norfolk

  613

  22/34

  Somerset

  610

  23/34

  West Sussex

  608

  24/34

  Derbyshire

  605

  25/34

  Warwickshire

  597

  26/34

  Leicestershire

  591

  27/34

  Worcestershire

  590

  28/34

  Wiltshire

  590

  29/34

  Dorset

  587

  30/34

  Hampshire

  584

  31/34

  Oxfordshire

  583

  32/34

  Surrey

  580

  33/34

  Cambridgeshire

  573

  34/34

  English Shire Counties

  627

  11
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the research undertaken to demonstrate that the sparsity adjustment used in the calculation of SSAs adequately reflects the additional cost of providing education in rural areas. [21945]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have placed in the Library a copy of a report, "Sparsity and Local Authority Costs" by Salford University Business Services. It suggests that the current allowance for sparsity in standard spending assessments is broadly correct.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will re-examine the way in which SSAs are calculated for county councils with regard to(a) education, (b) personal social services and (c) other county services. [21946]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department for Education and Employment is currently conducting a review of the indicator of additional education needs as used in the Education SSA. In addition, research into the area cost adjustment is likely to cover issues relating to the Education, Personal Social Services and county level 'All Other Services' SSAs. Whether any further work on these three elements will be done this year depends on the priorities of local central government when the work programme of the SSA Sub-Group is agreed later in the spring.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will re-examine the case for incorporating a sparsity factor into the calculation of the SSA provisions for(a) the under-fives and (b) other education. [21947]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our proposals for 1998–99 SSAs include a revised SSA for under-5 education which includes a sparsity factor. If local authorities feel that there is a strong case for sparsity to be taken into account in the other education SSA then they should raise the issue, through the Local Government Association, in the SSA Sub-group.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include social class as an indicator of educational attainment rates in the construction of the additional educational needs provision of SSAs. [21948]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department for Education and Employment is currently conducting a review of the indicator of additional education needs used in Standard Spending Assessments. It will examine a range of possible indicators of additional educational needs including indicators of social class. The review is intended to report in time for consideration before decisions are made about 1999–2000 SSAs.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the additional educational needs component of SSAs reflects the number of children with statements in each local authority. [21949]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department for Education and Employment is currently conducting a review of the indicator of additional education needs used in Standard Spending Assessments. It will consider a range of possible indicators. It will also consider how the formula could 12
  take account of the number of children with statements. The review is intended to report in time for consideration before decisions are made about 1999–2000 SSAs.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to introduce a new formula for the children's personal social service SSA; and if it will take into account the effects of population sparsity on the cost of providing social services for children in rural areas. [21950]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Whether any further work on the Children's Social Services SSA formula will be done this year depends upon the priorities of central and local government when the work of the SSA Sub-Group of the Settlement Working Group is agreed later in the spring.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will adjust the unit cost factor used in the SSA calculations to take account of the higher cost of providing domiciliary home care for elderly people in sparsely populated areas. [21951]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Whether any work will be done to consider the inclusion of a sparsity indicator within the Elderly Domiciliary SSA formula depends upon the priorities of central and local government when the work programme of the SSA Sub-Group of the Settlement Working Group is agreed later in the spring.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Standard Spending Assessment Sub Group will report on the use of the Social Index in the calculation of the other personal social services element of SSAs. [21952]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The SSA Sub-Group reviewed the Other Social Services Index in its 1997 round and details were given in the Sub-Group Report for 1998–99. As a result, we have proposed the replacement of the Other Social Services Index and the morbidity indicator by two new indices in the Other Social Services SSA formula for 1998–89.

  Driving Test
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment of the difficulties faced by persons living more than one hour's drive away from a motorway the Driving Standards Agency has made in its consideration of the inclusion of motorway driving in the driving test. [22666]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No detailed assessment has been made as we have no current plans to introduce motorway driving into the car test. The issue of adequate exposure to fast multi-carriageway driving in the practical test is one of those that will be addressed in the research into the practical car driving test that is currently being undertaken. Results are expected in two to three years' time.

  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Health and Safety Laboratory intends to publish its Annual Report and Accounts for 1996–97. [22568]
  13
  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Laboratory has today published the 1996–97 Annual Report and Accounts, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  A590 Bypass
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current status of his review of the proposed A590 bypass at High and Low Newton; and if he will make a statement. [21959]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently undertaking a strategic review of the Trunk Roads Programme. The A590 bypass at High and Low Newton is being considered within the context of that review, the results of which we hope to announce later this year.

  Council Tax
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a table showing the band D council tax increase for each notifiable authority in England(a) in cash terms and (b) in percentage terms based on the assumption that all councils spend at the provisional capping limit. [22277]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a table showing the information requested.

  Selby Bypass
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations have been made to his Department regarding the Selby bypass in response to the roads review consultation exercise. [22698]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Over 4,600 representations have been received on the proposed Selby bypass. Nearly all were completed pro-forma postcards supporting its construction.

  Housing Developments (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cards conveying opposition to Hertfordshire County Council's plans to build 10,000 houses in the Green Belt he has received. [22589]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have so far received approximately six and a half thousand identical postcards requesting that the Secretary of State call in the proposals in Hertfordshire County Council's Structure Plan Review for major development in the Green Belt west of Stevenage.

  Rail Crash (Wrexham)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 435, when he expects the Health and Safety Executive to complete their investigation of the rail crash at Wrexham General Station. [22746]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that follow-up work relating to the accident at Wrexham General Station on 24 April 14
  1997 will soon be complete. I understand that HSE has concluded that the derailment of a single wagon was caused by defects in the track, though further investigations are continuing into the underlying causes.

  Local Authority Planning Services
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the average national performance indicator values for local authority planning services; and how these relate to the indicators for Peterborough District Council in each of the last three years. [22211]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department publishes a six-monthly Planning Performance Checklist showing the performance of English local planning authorities against the Government's target that they should decide 80 per cent. of applications within eight weeks of receipt. The performance of Peterborough District Council against the national average over the past three financial years is given in the table.

  Percentage decided in eight weeks

  National average performance

  Peterborough District Council

  Year to 31 March 1995

  65

  57.3

  Year to 30 September 1995

  65

  55.8

  Year to 31 March 1996

  65

  58.7

  Year to 30 September 1996

  65

  63.4

  Year to 31 March 1997

  64

  66.4

  Lake Windermere (Speed Limit)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding his Department's plans for a speed limit on Windermere. [22524]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering whether or not to confirm byelaws made by the Lake District Special Planning Board (now the Lake District National Park Authority) which would impose a speed limit of 10mph on power-driven vessels on Windermere. In November the High Court quashed the decision by the last Secretary of State not to confirm the byelaws. In reaching a decision, we shall take account of all the representations so far made in relation to the proposed byelaws and any fresh representations made to us by 6 February.

  Structure Plan (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received a copy of Gloucestershire County Council's revised structure plan; if he will be accepting the reduced number of new houses proposed for the period covered; and if he will make a statement. [22525]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State has received a copy of the Deposit version of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan which, I understand, was placed on deposit today. Any representations or objections he wishes to make will be sent to the County Council before the end of the statutory six weeks consultation period.
  15
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the content of the plan because of the Secretary of State's formal role on planning matters.

  Celtic Seas Area
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish a quality status report for the Celtic Seas area including the Irish Sea. [22534]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom is working with the other Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention to prepare an overall quality status report on the North East Atlantic. As part of this, a regional report on the Celtic Seas, including the Irish Sea, will be prepared alongside other regional reports on the Arctic, the North Sea, the Bay of Biscay/Gulf of Gascony and the deep Atlantic. Publication is planned for 2000.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the road schemes, by local authority, for which the Government has suspended funding during 1998–99, indicating for each if this was on the grounds of(a) changes in policy and (b) increases in financial costs. [22450]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following table shows the local authority road schemes which were funded in 1997–98 but for which no financial support has been provided for 1998–99. Schemes for which no bids were received have not been included. In each case, the decision not to continue funding was in accordance with established procedures which take account of progress made on the scheme and the extent of previous financial support. In no case was increased cost the sole factor. None were suspended because of changes in policy.

  Local authority

  Road

  Scheme name

  Newham

  A117

  East Ham Town Centre Relief Road

  Newham

  A11

  Stratford Gyratory Modifications

  Manchester

  A6010

  Intermediate Ring Road Stage 2

  Doncaster

  A630

  Wheatley Hall Road

  Birmingham

  A5127

  Lichfield Road Improvement Phase 1

  Birmingham

  A47

  Heartlands Spine Road Phase 3

  Birmingham

  A34/A435

  South Birmingham Study Implementation

  Wakefield

  A628

  Hemsworth Bypass

  Buckinghamshire

  A413

  Wendover Bypass

  Derbyshire

  A6

  London Road

  Lincolnshire

  A57

  B1003 Lincoln Ropewalk to Carholme Road

  Northamptonshire

  A605

  Warmington Bypass and Tansor Improvements

  Nottinghamshire

  A6096

  Awsworth and Cossall Bypass

  Nottinghamshire

  A6117

  Mansfield Eastern Outer Ring Road (Phase 2)

  Staffordshire

  A527

  Tunstall Western Bypas Phases I and II

  Worcestershire

  A422

  Worcester Western Bypass and Link Roads

  North Somerset

  A370

  Weston-Super-Mare P.D.R. Stages IVB VC and VI

  Stockport

  A34

  A34 Byupass-Etchells Road to School Hill

  Leeds

  East Leeds Radial

  East Sussex

  A22

  Nightingale Farm to A27

  Hampshire

  A331

  Blackwater Valley Route North

  Hampshire

  A326

  Totton Western Bypass Stage 3

  Norfolk

  A143

  Brockdish Bypass

  Somerset

  A39

  Glastonbury Western Relief Road

  Surrey

  A31

  Runfold Diversion and Blackwater Valley Route

  16

  Local authority

  Road

  Scheme name

  Berkshire

  A33

  A33 Relief Road Kiln Lane to IDR

  Cheshire

  A34

  Handorth and Wilmslow Bypass

  Essex

  A133

  Little Clacton Bypass and Gorse Lane Link Stage 2

  Nottinghamshire

  A6009

  Mansfield Inner Ring Road Stage 3

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy in respect of reviewing local authority road schemes previously funded through the TPP system against the criteria of(a) integration, (b) accessibility, (c) safety, (d) economy and (e) environmental impact. [22452]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All current local authority road schemes were accepted for funding with a commitment to continue financial support provided that reasonable progress was made towards their completion. It would therefore be unreasonable to assess existing schemes against different criteria from those used when the schemes were first accepted for funding.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the total number of new packages submitted by local authorities in their TPP bids for 1998–99; [22453]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 November 1997, Official Report, column 277, how many new rural packages were awarded funding in the local transport settlement for 1998–99. [22454]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Bids for 69 new packages were received. Among 10 new packages to receive full approval in the settlement, one was for a predominantly rural area. It was Cumbria County Council's Lake District package.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of major new road schemes for which each local authority bid for funding under the TPP system for 1998–99. [22451]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The schemes are as listed:

  Authority

  Scheme

  Bucks

  A4146

  Linslade Western Bypass

  Bucks

  A4146

  Stoke Hammond Bypass

  Cambs

  A605

  King's Dyke Railway Bridge

  Cambs

  A142

  Fordham Bypass

  Essex

  A131

  Great Leigh Bypass

  Lines

  A46

  Faldingworth Bypass

  Luton

  A6

  Inner Ring Road Phase 1, Villa Link

  Norfolk

  A143

  Broome/Ellingham Bypass

  Notts

  A6002

  Nottingham W. Outer Loop Road Ph 2

  Bexley

  Bexleyheath Town Centre Traffic Management

  Sutton

  A24

  A217 Link Road

  Sutton

  B272

  Beddington Lane/Beddington Farm Link Road

  Liverpool

  A565

  Great Howard Street/Derby Road Improvement

  St. Helens

  A58

  Blackbrook Diversion

  Durham

  A688

  Wheatley Hill to Bowburn Bypass

  Northumberland

  A197

  A1 to S.E. Northumberland Link Road

  Stockton

  South Stockton Link Road

  East Sussex

  Bexhill and Hastings Link Roads

  Oxon

  A40

  Bus Lane; Witney Bypass to Wolvercote Roundabout

  Surrey

  A24

  Clarks Green to County Boundary Bypass

  17

  Authority

  Scheme

  West Sussex

  A24

  Horsham—Capel Improvements

  Cornwall

  A391

  St. Austell N.E. Distributer Road

  Cornwall

  A39

  Playing Place—Carnon Gate Bypass

  Dorset

  A354

  Weymouth: Mt. Pleasant to Ridgeway Bypass

  Devon

  A383

  Newton Abbott: Jetty Marsh Relief Road

  Devon

  Braunton—Velator Link Road

  Gloucs

  Cotswold Eastern Spine Road—A417/A419 Link Road

  Gloucs

  A4136

  Strategic whole Route improvement

  Torbay

  A380

  Torbay Ring Road Stage 4

  Staffs

  A51

  Rugeley Bypass

  Staffs

  A5190

  Burntwood Bypasses

  Staffs

  A527

  Biddulph Bypass

  Warwicks

  A429

  Barford Bypass

  Worcs

  A441

  Bordesley Bypass

  Road Schemes by Local Authorities

  Local authority

  Road

  Scheme name

  1998–99 allocation (£000)

  Total gross cost (£000)

  Medway Towns

  A289

  Wainscott Northern Bypass

  13,226

  67,416

  Medway Towns

  A289

  Gillingham Northern Link

  19,000

  44,685

  Buckinghamshire

  A421

  Tingewick Bypass

  2,809

  12,802

  East Sussex

  A22

  New route Dittons to Eastbourne

  3,500

  27,866

  Hampshire

  A331

  Blackwater Valley route (centre)

  2,295

  39,338

  Hampshire

  A325

  Woolmer Link Road

  368

  2,803

  Block allocation for following schemes

  29,000

  Kent

  A299

  Thanet way dualling (sections 1–7a)

  —

  184,605

  Kent

  A206

  South Thames-side Devt Route Stage 1

  —

  20,850

  Kent

  A228

  Hale Street Bypass

  —

  10,400

  Kent

  A256

  Whitfield to Eastry/Whitfield Bypass

  —

  37,770

  Kent

  A28/A20

  Barracks Link Ashford

  —

  3,950

  Kent

  A226

  South Thames-side development route

  —

  18,354

  Kent

  A289

  Wainscott Northern Bypass

  —

  67,416

  Kent

  A289

  Gillingham Northern Link

  —

  44,685

  Oxfordshire

  B4031

  Tingewick Bypass

  1,510

  12,802

  Surrey

  Black Valley route

  800

  78,586

  West Sussex

  A2300

  Burgess Hill Link Road

  594

  6,032

  Cornwall

  A39

  Trispen Bypass and A30 Link

  472

  6,050

  Dorset

  A37

  A37 Improvements-section B and C

  350

  8,869

  Gloucestershire

  A430

  Gloucester South West Bypass

  1,000

  22,290

  Somerset

  A39

  Wells Relief Road

  500

  14,163

  Somerset

  A37

  Yeovil to Dorset Boundary Phase 1

  1,423

  5,813

  South Gloucestershire

  A4174

  Avon Ring Road II

  5,000

  29,530

  Birmingham

  A47

  Heartlands Spine Road Phase 2

  2,000

  58,220

  Coventry

  A444

  North-South Road Phase 1

  500

  22,586

  Coventry

  A444

  North-South Road Phase 2

  500

  22,270

  Dudley

  A461

  Dudley Southern Bypass

  13,000

  55,000

  Hartlepool

  A179

  A179 Improvement

  500

  5,180

  Leicester City

  A563

  Leicester A46/47 Link Road

  2,500

  9,058

  Sandwell

  A4034

  Churchbridge Improvement Sandwell

  337

  3,840

  Solihull

  A45

  West Midlands Renaissance Area

  650

  18,528

  Wolverhampton

  A4124

  Wednesfield Bypass

  5,000

  25,325

  Staffordshire

  A50

  Uttoxeter Town Centre Bypass

  600

  17,224

  Worcestershire

  A44

  Broadway Bypass

  1,800

  8,405

  Manchester

  Inner Relief Road

  7,200

  15,000

  Oldham

  A62/A627

  Oldham Way Improvements

  1,674

  5,850

  Salford

  A5063

  Trafford Road (The Quays-White City)

  100

  20,782

  Trafford

  A56

  City Link/White City Interchange

  1,500

  36,721

  Trafford

  A5063

  Trafford Road Improvement

  908

  23,952

  Cheshire

  A533

  Davenham Bypass

  350

  18,150

  Cheshire

  A534

  Wheelock Bypass

  5,250

  11,548

  Lancashire

  A6/A582

  South Ribble M65 Interface

  968

  12,727

  Knowsley

  A5300

  M57-A562 Link Road

  300

  47,334

  Sefton

  A59

  Aintree Park Lane Improvement

  2,542

  3,300

  Redcar and Cleveland

  A174

  Skelton and Brotton Bypass

  2,677

  12,260

  Stockton-on-Tees

  A1046

  Portrack Lane Dualling

  350

  7,791

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  A6082

  West Central Route

  5,500

  20,996

  Northumberland

  A189

  North Seaton Duplication Stage 1

  1,000

  10,645

  Kingson upon Hull

  A1033

  Ennerdale Link Road

  300

  30,487

  North East Lincolnshire

  A16

  Grimsby Peakes Parkway

  7,740

  25,048

  North Yorkshire

  A61

  Ripon Bypass/Distributor Roads

  300

  19,667

  18

  Authority

  Scheme

  Worcs

  A4538

  Wyre Piddle Northern Bypass

  Doncaster

  A19

  North Bridge Relief road

  Kirklees

  A62

  Central Huddersfield Improvements

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the road schemes by local authority which make up the existing commitments in the local transport settlement 1998–99, indicating for each(a) the money awarded in the 1998–99 local transport settlement and (b) the total costs. [22449]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is given in the table.
  19

  Road Scheme by Local Authorities

  Local authority

  Road

  Scheme name

  1998–99 allocation (£000)

  Total gross cost (£000)

  Barnsley

  A6195

  Dearne Towns Link Road

  7,661

  39,510

  Sheffield

  A6102

  Outer Ring Road (Darnall) Stages II-IV

  500

  20,669

  Sheffield

  Inner Ring Road Stage I

  3,660

  12,908

  Leeds

  Leeds Inner Ring Road Stages 6 and 7

  6,200

  78,821

  Leeds

  Leeds City Centre Loop Phase 3

  1,000

  8,079

  Lincolnshire

  A15/A16

  Market Deeping Bypass

  621

  10,561

  Nottinghamshire

  A608

  M1 to A611 Improvement Annesley

  300

  5,099

  Nottinghamshire

  A617

  Rainworth Bypass

  249

  8,509

  Peterborough

  A15

  Werrington to Glinton Phase 2

  773

  1,300

  Bedfordshire

  A507

  Arlesey-Stotfold Bypass

  300

  14,030

  Hertfordshire

  A121

  Cheshunt Link Road

  565

  16,297

  Bexley

  A207

  Bexleyheath SRR and Pedestrianisation

  378

  6,443

  Bexley

  A2016

  Erith-Thamesmead Spine Road (Phase IV)

  1,325

  33,339

  Enfield

  A110

  Nags Head Road/High Street

  258

  4,857

  Greenwich

  A206

  Woolwich Road Improvement

  5,119

  24,159

  Harrow

  A409

  Wealdstone Bypass

  446

  16,517

  Harrow

  A409

  Sheepcote Road Widening

  861

  2,905

  Hillingdon

  A4020

  Uxbridge Town Centre

  375

  2,281

  Hounslow

  A315

  Hounslow Centre-Urban Relief Road

  340

  10,885

  Kensington and Chelsea

  A404

  Harrow Road Junction

  200

  9,171

  Kingston upon Thames

  A240

  North-South Strategy-A240 Corridor

  768

  4,494

  Westminster

  A404

  Harrow Road/Ladbroke Grove Widening

  684

  4,398

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) date of appointment, (b) terms of reference and (c) membership of the focus groups established by his Department to discuss genetically modified organisms. [22606]

  Angela Eagle
  Although no formal focus groups have been established by my Department to discuss genetically modified organisms a National Biotechnology Conference was held last year which brought together representatives from industry, environmental and consumer groups, the scientific community and Government. The aim of the conference was to discuss developments in biotechnology, their benefits and broad implications for human health and environmental safety and how these will influence the principles on which biotechnology regulation is based.

  Driving Licence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Union flag that appeared on the original published design of the new plastic United Kingdom driving licence does not appear on the final design. [22460]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The original published design of the proposed photocard driving licence which appeared on the consultation document issued in August 1994 did not contain the Union Flag. Inclusion of a national flag arose when proposals were put forward in August 1996 for a joint identity card/driving licence. Those proposals are not being pursued.

  Lady Porter
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the collecting of the full surcharge from Lady Porter following the recent court decision; and if he will make a statement. [22495]
  20
  Mr. Raynsford
  Collection of the surcharge amount confirmed by the Divisional Court is a matter for the auditor and the City of Westminster. I understand that there remains a possibility of appeals against the judgment of the Court.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms exist for appealing against refusal by the Environment Agency to register companies as accredited reprocessors for the purpose of issuing packaging waste recovery notes under the Producer Responsibility (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [22282]

  Angela Eagle
  The Agencies reserve the right to refuse accreditation and to remove accreditation from any reprocessor. There is no statutory right of appeal against such decisions, but reprocessors will be given the relevant Agency's reasons in writing and will be notified of the complaints procedure if they wish to pursue any grievances. This complaints procedure does not affect any other legal remedies open to the reprocessor.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent visits have been made by High Commission officials to the northern area of Sri Lanka; and what reports have been received following such visits. [21897]

  Mr. Fatchett
  High Commission officials travel extensively around Sri Lanka, although not all areas are accessible because of fighting between Government forces and the LTTE. Since Jaffna was brought under Government control in December 1995, High Commission officials have made five separate visits to the areas, most recently in November 1997. They report that
  21
  the situation there is gradually improving, but remain concerned about allegations of human rights abuses on the peninsula.

  Christmas Island
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the note by the head of the EU delegation in Suva to the British High Commissioner dated 24 January 1996, concerning a list of points of action by the Kiribati Government on environmental restoration on Christmas Island. [22029]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have placed in the Library today a copy of the note of 24 January 1996 from the head of the EU delegation in Suva to the British High Commissioner, which is about the environmental project on South Tarawa.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received since May from the Republic of Kiribati concerning the need for environmental restoration on Christmas Island arising from United Kingdom nuclear tests. [22030]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received no representations from the Republic of Kiribati concerning the environmental restoration of Christmas Island in the period since May.

  European Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 November 1997,Official Report, column 479, for what reason Command Paper 3780 omits the text of the 15 protocols of the Treaty on European Union; and if he will publish a command paper to include current articles and protocols contained in the Command Papers 455 of 1988 and 2485 of 1994. [22197]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There is no need for a consolidated version of Command Papers 455 of 1988 and 2485 of 1994. A consolidated version of the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty on European Union, as amended by all subsequent treaties, including the Treaty of Amsterdam (not yet in force) has already been published as part of Command Paper 3780 (1997). This does not reproduce the texts of protocols annexed to the Treaty of Rome or the protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union, as they are not substantively amended (although some are repealed) by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The texts of these protocols can be found in Command Papers 455 of 1988 and 2485 of 1994.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings were given by Israel at the meeting with EU officials on 28 November in respect of doubts concerning the validity of preferential certificates on imports labelled "Made" in Israel; how these undertakings related to the suspension of inquiries concerning some manufactured goods; and how these undertakings differed from past assurances relating to goods now known to have been falsely described. [22196]
  22
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  At the meeting on 28 November 1997 with the European Commission, Israel undertook to provide copies of current internal legislation relevant to ensure the implementation of the origin and mutual assistance protocols annexed to the EC/Israel Interim Agreement and in particular the obligation on Israeli customs to ensure the correct application of the rules of origin. Israel has acknowledged that prior to 1 January 1996, national legislation had prevented the implementation of control mechanisms envisaged in the agreement, and has agreed to verify the originating status of all orange juice exported to the EC since 6 June 1995.

  The Commission had previously expressed concern that Israeli national legislation was so structured that the proper checking of certificates of origin was not taking place in respect of goods exported to the European Community under the Preferential Trade Agreement. This led the Commission to publish a warning to importers in the Official Journal on 8 November 1997, and to preparations being made by HM Customs and Excise for inquiries into a range of Israeli manufactured products. In the light of the undertakings now given by Israel, Customs felt it appropriate to suspend those inquiries.

  Luxembourg Summit
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the figures for GDP per capita used by the Council of Ministers in its Luxembourg summit in respect of(a) Cyprus, (b) Hungary, (c) Poland, (d) Estonia, (e) the Czech Republic, (f) Slovenia, (g) Romania, (h) Slovakia, (i) Latvia, (j) Lithuania, (k) Bulgaria, (l) Turkey, (m) the Greek sector of Cyprus and (n) the Turkish sector of Cyprus. [22178]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  GDP per capita is not one of the criteria for EU membership. No GDP figures were submitted to the European Council in Luxembourg.

  However, the Commission's Opinions of July 1997 on the Central European candidates contained details of GDP per capita based on 1995 figures. These were as follows (in ecu):

  Number

  Hungary

  3,340

  Poland

  2,360

  Romania

  1,200

  Slovak Republic

  2,470

  Latvia

  1,370

  Estonia

  1,850

  Lithuania

  930

  Bulgaria

  1,180

  Czech Republic

  3,490

  Slovenia

  7,240

  The Commission's Opinion on Cyprus dates from 1993. But in the Agenda 2000 Communication of July 1997 the Commission quotes a more recent figure of 3,600 ecu for the north of the island, which is estimated to be a third of the figure for the south (i.e. 10,800 ecu).

  The Commission's Opinion on Turkey dates from 1989, but a recent OECD report estimated 1995 GDP per capita as 2,075 ecu.

  Heathrow (VIP Facilities)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by month since May(a) the number of times VIP facilities at Heathrow Airport have been hired by Her Majesty's Government and (b) the total expenditure on VIP facilities at Heathrow Airport. [22200]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information is as follows:

  Number of times VIP facilities hired

  £

  May

  883

  169,116.58

  June

  1,189

  227,723.23

  July

  1,332

  255,111.31

  August

  1,297

  248,407.93

  September

  1,391

  266,411.28

  October

  1,315

  251,855.38

  November

  993

  190,184.33

  The figures include use of VIP facilities by the British Council and the Bank of England as well as HMG. They also include VAT. The figures include use by foreign and Commonwealth VIP visitors as well as HMG Ministers.

  European Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the treaty articles governing the operation of the European Council. [22198]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Article D of the Treaty on European Union sets out the purpose, composition and frequency of European Councils. Although the European Council works within the framework of the Treaties, there are no procedural rules for its operation.

  Land Mines
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will bring forward legislation to incorporate the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their destruction into domestic law. [22492]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We intend to introduce legislation as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings members of his Department have held with General Pinochet over the last three years. [17825]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 November 1997, c. 615]Additional information has reached me, since my answer of 27 November. The correct answer is as follows.

  There have been two meetings involving members of my Department, in March 1995 and March 1996. These involved the then Ambassador to Santiago accompanying visiting MOD staff on the two occasions during this period when courtesy calls were made on General Pinochet as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army. Discussions were of a general nature and did not cover
  24
  defence sales. Apart from these calls British Embassy staff in Santiago have attended several official state and military functions at which General Pinochet, again in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, was also present. No discussions took place between these staff and General Pinochet at these events.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Publications
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if a complete bibliographic record of official publications can be accessed via the Internet. [22626]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Stationery Office Ltd. and Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. now provide an Internet version of the United Kingdom Official Publications (UKOP) database. UKOP Online currently provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date bibliographic record of official publications. It combines the complete catalogue of Official Publications published by The Stationery Office (and previously HMSO) and Chadwyck-Healey's Catalogue of Official Publications not published by The Stationery Office which is produced from information provided by Government Departments and Agencies. The Universal Resource Locator is http://www.ukop.co.uk.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of those appointed to health or other public bodies since 1 May were Labour party agents in 1997 parliamentary elections, listing the constituencies. [22572]

  Dr. David Clark
  Information on whether those appointed to public bodies acted as party agents is not held centrally. The Commissioner for Public Appointments does require that all candidates appointed make a declaration about any public political activity they have undertaken in the last five years, and, for monitoring purposes, identify the political party concerned. The Commissioner's third report, due to be published in July 1998, will contain the declared political activity information at aggregate level.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22684]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service) and its Agencies have a total of 198 cycling spaces in their buildings, of which 172 are secure.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience (Cycling)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what arrangements will be made at the Millennium experience for access by cycle and to protect storage of cycles; and what arrangements he has made for the design of the cycle shed; [22192]
  25
  (2) what proposals he has for cycle ways to enable the public to cycle to the Millennium Experience from central London (a) via the North Bank and (b) via the South Bank of the Thames. [22193]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company will be promoting cycling as a means of travel to the Experience as part of its access strategy. Cycle facilities, including secure storage, will be provided at the Millennium Experience site. Appropriate expert advice will be sought when designing these facilities.

  The New Millennium Experience Company is contributing up to £500,000 to the costs of improving cycle and pedestrian routes in the vicinity of the Experience site. In particular there will be riverside cycle way linking to the site to "historic Greenwich", which will form part of the proposed Thames Cycle Route from Central London.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what recent assessment he has made of his answering practices in respect of his duties other than in connection with the Millennium Dome, and the guidance to Ministers provided in the Ministerial Code of Conduct. [22657]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I strive at all times to answer questions from hon. Members in accordance with the obligations set out in the Ministerial Code.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the value to date of National Lottery funding of new and refurbished buildings in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, broken down into (i) grants and (ii) matching funding. [21709]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The National Lottery distributors estimate that some 5,805 awards worth approximately £2.78 billion have been made to help support new buildings and refurbish existing ones across the United Kingdom. A further £2.75 billion has been promised in partnership funding. A breakdown by country follows:

  Country

  Number of awards

  Total value of awards £

  Total partnership funding £

  England

  4,556

  2,228,674,486

  2,148,929,092

  Wales

  441

  150,334,974

  264,029,884

  Scotland

  597

  238,163,783

  237,297,772

  Northern Ireland

  211

  102,002,060

  103,397,786

  Total

  5,805

  2,779,175,303

  2,753,654,534

  Information on National Lottery awards is now available on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk. The information is updated on a regular basis.

  Television Broadcasting and Technology
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has received from the Commission of the European Communities concerning harmonisation of legislation concerning television 26
  broadcasting and technology; what consultation took place prior to its publication; and what arrangements he has made for consultation on it in the United Kingdom. [21691]

  Mr. Fisher
  The European Commission published a Green paper on the regulatory implications of convergence between the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors on 3 December 1997. The Green Paper is subject to the usual consultation procedures within the Commission. The Government are consulting widely in preparing their response to the Green Paper and have specifically invited comments from interested parties involved in each of the sectors concerned.

  Lottery Funding (Wales)
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to set up a distributing body in Wales for the New Opportunities Fund; and what proposals he has to ensure that childcare proposals from Wales are adjudged for funding by criteria appropriate to Welsh circumstances. [22409]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Lottery Bill currently before Parliament provides for the establishment of the New Opportunities Fund to distribute Lottery funds under the new good cause for health, education and the environment. Subject to Parliament's approval of the Bill, the Fund will be a UK-wide body, but the Bill provides that four of its members should make the interests of the four home countries respectively their special care. The Fund will be able to establish whatever committees it believes appropriate for the effective exercise of its functions, depending on the nature of the initiatives it is to pursue. These could include committees that would exercise the functions of the Fund in each of the home countries.

  The Fund's operations will be guided by directions issued by me after consultation with colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, which will take into account the special circumstances and needs of all parts of the United Kingdom. Such arrangements will ensure that all funding proposals, including those for childcare, are judged against criteria appropriate to the circumstances of the country concerned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence has been obtained by her or her Department of quantities of plutonium being unaccounted for at(a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay. [22070]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: Figures for nuclear "material unaccounted for" (MUF), covering plutonium and uranium in civil nuclear plants, including Sellafield and Dounreay, have been published annually by the industry since 1977. The latest figures, for the year 1996–97, were published on 19 December 1997 (a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House). The figures are subject to careful review by specialists in my Department, who remain satisfied that they are consistent with what would normally be expected

  27
  for these types of facility and that there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any actual loss of material. Civil nuclear material in the UK is also subject to the independent oversight of international nuclear safeguards inspectorates and to rigorous physical protection measures by the nuclear operators.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 2 December,Official Report, columns 163–64. if she will list (a) the United Kingdom participants in the informal group on the management of civil plutonium, and their qualifications for participation and (b) the number and dates of meetings of the informal group; when the Government received a copy of the new guidelines to which reference is made; and when she intends to publish the details of the new national strategy for nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle. [22298]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Kingdom officials who participated in the informal group were: Department of Trade and Industry—Mr. Peter Agrell, formerly Director, Non-Proliferation, who chaired all but one meeting of the group; Mr. John Neve, Director, Non-Proliferation, who chaired the last meeting of the group on 29 September 1997; Mr. Carl Warren, Assistant Director, Nuclear Industries Directorate; and Foreign and Commonwealth Office—Mrs. Joanne Caley, Non-Proliferation Department. These officials are together responsible for the provision of policy advice to Ministers relating to the management of civil plutonium and associated non-proliferation issues.

  The group met eleven times over a period of four years. The final text of the new guidelines was eventually agreed by correspondence in November 1997. I am arranging for a copy of the UK's national strategy for nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Single Market
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 25 November 1997,Official Report, column 510, what representations have been made by trade and business associations (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) within the EU requesting further community legislation on (i) road and rail passenger transport, (ii) measuring instruments, (iii) gas liberalisation and (iv) electronic commerce; and what representations have been published by (1) Her Majesty's Government and (2) the EU Commission. [22174]

  Mrs. Beckett
  While businesses involved in road and rail transport make representations from time to time about ongoing Community legislative proposals they have not in the main made representations requesting further legislation. In addition the CBI has recently announced that priority should be given to promoting liberalisation of EU railways.

  The UK Weighting Federation (UKWF) and the Petrol Pump Manufacturers Association (PPMA) have made representations to the Department about the need for
  28
  market-opening Community legislation in the field of measuring instruments. I understand that both the European Trade Associations representing the UKWF and PPMA have met the relevant Commissioner on a number of occasions to press for further Community legislation. The Government have not published any of these representations. The Government are not aware that any such representations have been published by the Commission.

  Various representations were received from UK trade and business in connection with the proposed directive to liberalise the European gas market. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, as part of the normal process of scrutiny of EU legislation, held an inquiry and received oral and written evidence from business. Its report, published on 18 November (7th Report, Session 1997–98, HL Paper 35) recommended a debate in the House of Lords which took place on 2 December 1997 (at columns 1313–36).

  The Government have received several representations from business organisations about legislation on electronic commerce, notably on the need to avoid barriers to intra-Community trade in electronic commerce. The Government are not aware that any such representations have been published by the Commission.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 528, if she will set out the material balance areas and particular safeguard provisions covering MOX nuclear fuel which are covered by the Euratom safeguards. [22346]

  Mrs. Roche
  At present, mixed oxide fuel (MOX) is manufactured in the United Kingdom at the MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF) at Sellafield. Particular safeguards provisions in which detailed nuclear material reporting requirements for MDF are specified have been agreed with the Euratom Safeguards Directorate. Work to finalise and implement the agreed safeguards approach for the larger Sellafield Mox Plant (SMP) is also well advanced and this work will include preparation by the Euratom Safeguards Directorate of particular safeguards provisions for SMP. An overview of nuclear materials accountancy and safeguards arrangements for SMP was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management in July 1996 (a copy of the paper will be placed in the Library of the House). Details of specific material balance areas and the associated particular safeguards provisions are however classified and controlled for security and commercial reasons.

  Departmental Payment Performance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will publish the table of Government Departments' payment performance. [22243]
  29
  Mrs. Roche
  Government departments and their agencies are required to monitor their payment performance and publish the results in their annual or departmental reports.

  My hon. Friend, The Paymaster General, published the league table of Departments' payment performance for the period 1 June 1996 to 31 March 1997 on 27 November (cm 662).

  Additionally, my Department will produce the league table for Departments and their agencies for the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998. This will be available before the summer recess.

  Satellite Navigation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the role she envisages for UK industry in investigating the future of satellite navigation within Europe. [22241]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK is an important player in the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) being developed by the European Space Agency, Leading UK space industry companies are currently negotiating for work in key technology areas such as the Central Processing Facility (CPF) and the Central Control Facility (CCF). The contract for implementation of the programme is due to start in summer 1998 with completion scheduled for 2001.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions(a) she and (b) the European Commission has had with the (i) Japanese, (ii) US and (iii) Russian authorities on the scope for co-operation in planning future satellite navigation systems. [22242]

  Mr. Battle
  Such discussions are carried out by the European Tripartite Group, a body consisting of members of the European Commission, the European Space Agency and EUROCONTROL. The European Tripartite Group had discussions with authorities in Russia in May 1997, the US in September 1997 and Japan in September 1997, November 1997 and December 1997. I and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have not considered additional discussions to be either appropriate or necessary at this stage.

  Investment
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the conduct of the pre-signatory environmental review of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in terms of transparency and range of investment and subject matter. [22205]

  Total in UK

  Widows/dependants in UK1

  Total in North-East region

  Widows/dependants1 in North-East region

  All beneficiaries2

  69,151

  34,452

  11,122

  5,267

  Former mineworkers only

  54,271

  28,926

  8,850

  4,450

  1 There are only a very small number of dependants—normally an adult child who has kept home for a beneficiary.

  2 "Beneficiary"—ex-employees of British Coal (mineworkers, staff, clerical, etc.) and widows/dependants who qualify for concessionary fuel.

  30
  Mrs. Roche
  The OECD's review of foreign direct investment and the enviornment is in the form of an overview by the OECD Secretariat of recent literature on this topic. It provides a thorough analysis which will help all parties interested in the MAI better understand how international investment interacts with the enviornment. It is available on the Internet.

  A further note by the OECD Secretariat on the relationship between the MAI and selected multilateral environmental agreements has just been completed and will be discussed by the MAI negotiators next week.

  Both reports will contribute to further discussions between negotiating parties on the implications of the MAI for the environment.

  Mink
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many mink skins have been(a) imported to and (b) exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [22523]

  Mrs. Roche
  Data on UK trade in mink furskins are given in the table.

  UK trade in mink furskins1 1987–96

  Thousands

  UK imports

  UK exports

  1987

  1,385

  2,444

  1988

  1,020

  2,159

  1989

  779

  1,947

  1990

  506

  1,603

  1991

  280

  1,081

  1992

  365

  1,228

  1993

  361

  1,186

  1994

  423

  1,047

  1995

  753

  1,539

  1996

  1,100

  1,542

  1 Codes 430211 and 43023021 of the Harmonised Commodity Coding System.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise data.

  Concessionary Fuel
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) former mineworkers and (b) mineworkers' widows are in receipt of cash-in-lieu of fuel payments in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the North-East region. [22634]

  Mr. Battle
  The table gives details of beneficiaries who were in receipt of cash-in-lieu of concessionary fuel at 1 December 1997.
  31
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) former mineworkers and (b) minworkers' widows are in receipt of concessionary fuel (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) the North-East region. [22630]

  Total in UK

  Widows/dependants in UK

  Total in North-East region

  Widows/dependents1 in North East region

  All beneficiaries2

  100,022

  30,037

  14,085

  4,344

  Former mineworkers only

  85,937

  26,934

  12,220

  3,855

  1 There are only a very small number of dependants—normally an adult child who has kept home for a beneficiary.

  2 "Beneficiary"—ex-employees of British Coal (mineworkers, staff, clerical, etc.) and widows/dependants who qualify for concessionary fuel.

  Employment Contracts
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement regarding the right of employees to a contract of employment. [22465]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  All employees have a contract of employment, which is brought into existence by an employee's acceptance of the terms and conditions of employment offered by an employer. The terms of the contract may be written, oral, implied, or a mixture of all three. In addition, most employees who are employed for one month or more have a statutory right to receive a written statement setting out the main particulars of their employment. Although the written statement is not itself a contract of employment, it can provide evidence of the terms and conditions of employment in the event of dispute.

  Admiralty House
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the hourly pay rates of the cleaners employed at Admiralty house. [22652]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The hourly rate is £6.25.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons a washing machine and hoover were provided at her Admiralty apartment. [22649]

  Mrs. Beckett
  To replace those already provided which were deceased.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her flat in Admiralty buildings is classified as secure accommodation for a Minister. [22644]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Yes.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the floor area of the President's apartment in the Admiralty. [22647]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The floor space of the one bedroom apartment is unchanged since it was occupied by Conservative or Labour Ministers, including a former holder of my post, at, I understand 318.2 sq m.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were invited on each occasion when she has used her apartment for official business. [22648]
  32
  Mr. Battle
  The table gives details of beneficiaries who were in receipt of concessionary fuel at 1 December 1997.

  :Mrs. Beckett
  I have, to date, hosted three official receptions at my Admiralty House apartment. The number of invitations issued on each occasion were 126, 189 and 207.

  Ministerial Expenses
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 520, if she will provide a breakdown of the sum spent on the President's apartment.
  [22653]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The figures are as follows:

  Description of works/purchase

  Cost including VAT £

  Internal decorations and installation of kitchen units

  52,875

  Purchase of new kitchen units, table and chairs

  9,208

  Domestic items

  1,818

  Porterage

  413

  Total including VAT

  64,314

  Since 22 December the Department has received a bill for related project management fees of £12,314.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her apartment in Admiralty buildings is a taxable benefit. [22645]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The tax treatment of my Admiralty flat is in accordance with the provisions of the Taxes Act 1988 as it applies to accommodation provided to a person by reason of their employment or the office they hold.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her Answer of 19 December 1997,Official Report, column 343, if she will provide a breakdown of the £90,000 travel budget. [22638]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The travel budget is not broken down further. However, a summary of main items of expenditure as at 18 November 1997 was provided in my answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 18 November 1997,Official Report, columns 104–05.

  Genetic Engineering
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) date of appointment, (b) terms of

  33
  reference and (c) membership of the focus groups established by her Department to discuss genetic engineering. [22603]

  Mr. Battle
  No specific focus groups have been established by my Department to discuss genetic engineering. However, I have already announced, on 24 November, the intention to hold a public consultation exercise about advances in biosciences and their implications.

  The goal is to engage members of the public in debate. An important pre-cursor to this is to involve interested parties already active in the debate. I shall be hosting a meeting early this year to discuss with groups active in both biosciences and science communication how we can best develop the public activity.

  Minister of State
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the businesses visited since 1 May by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and the dates. [21138]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: Since 1 May 1997 I have visited the following companies.
  34

  Company name

  28 August

  Midas, Swinton and Trafford Park Shimadzu/Kratos, Trafford Park PPG Industries, Wigan

  1 September

  Yuasa Automotive Batteries, Birmingham

  13 October

  Shell, London

  22 October

  Barclays Bank plc, Lombard Street, London

  24 October

  Photronics, Trafford Park, Manchester

  30 October

  Motorola, Easter Inch (near Edinburgh)

  7 November

  Broker Direct, Bolton

  11 November

  Centre for Productivity and Efficiency, Burton upon Trent

  21 November

  Nissho Iwai Europe plc, London

  In addition, I have met with numerous companies and employer organisations both in my office and at other venues.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to complete her discussion on the co-ordination of inward investment bids. [22650]

  Mrs. Beckett
  New arrangements on the co-ordination of proposed inward investment projects will be announced when my colleagues and I are satisfied that they represent the best way forward for all parts of the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the impact on the Welsh Assembly of the proposals in the White Paper on Open Government; and if he will make a statement. [22097]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The principles of open government will apply equally to the National Assembly for Wales. The Government of Wales Bill make specific provision for proceedings of the Assembly to be open to the public and for access to and public inspection of documents—clauses 69 and 112. These requirements will be supplemented by the Assembly's standing orders.

  The Advisory Group which my right hon. Friend has appointed will be taking full account of the White paper in the advice it provides on how the standing orders should be developed.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of town and community councils with particular reference to his proposals for the Welsh Assembly. [22096]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government attach particular importance to the role of town and community councils given their role as the tier of government with the closest democratic links to local people. Under the provision of the Government of Wales Bill, the National Assembly for Wales will establish a Partnership Council with local government. Membership of the Council will be determined by the Assembly in the light of consultation with, and nominations received from, associations of local authorities in Wales. This would include associations representing town and community councils.

  Open Government
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he proposes to make his Department more open. [22098]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We are making the Department more open in a number of ways. We propose to make the economic powerhouse subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 as a means of demonstrating our commitment to greater openness and transparency. My right hon. Friend has already opened to consultation a number of important areas, including seeking views on Welsh Office expenditure before taking decisions on budget allocations. New policies, such as the childcare strategy for Wales, are being developed with the help of independent and representative groups and through wide consultation, rather than within the confines of the Welsh Office. Openness is also a matter of culture and we have made a point of ensuring that answers to Parliamentary Questions and correspondence are as informative as possible. We will ensure that there will be further steps in the spirit of the current White Paper on Freedom of Information.

  EU Assistance (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to press for the restoration 36
  of Objective 2 Status to Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [22100]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend met Commissioner Wulf Mathies on 12 December and underlined the importance we attach in Wales to the continued receipt of Structural Funds support after 1999. The eligibility of areas such as Alyn and Deeside will, of course, be dependent on criteria that will emerge as part of the revised Structural Funds Regulations which are expected to be published in the next few months. We are already seeking to influence these and as part of this process my right hon. Friend specifically asked the Commissioner to consider the inclusion of GDP as a more appropriate measure of relative prosperity.

  Medical and Dental Students
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the special support which will be made available to students who choose medicine or dentistry as a second degree. [22141]

  Mr. Hain
  The current rules concerning previous study will apply to all students in 1998–99. As now, a student will not be eligible for a second mandatory award if they have already been on a course for which they have had help from public funds. The awards system is intended to underwrite one opportunity to undertake a full-time course of higher education.

  It is still open to local education authorities, however, to offer discretionary awards to students who fall into this category. Similarly, it is also open to these students to contact the higher education institution concerned about Access Funds.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the income derived from tuition fees from medical students will be devoted to medical school education. [22142]

  Mr. Hain
  All tuition fees from medical students will be available to the medical school at which they are enrolled.

  Unitary Authorities (Political Affiliation)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown of the unitary authorities of Wales according to political affiliation. [22031]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This information is published in the "Municipal Yearbook" 1998, a copy of which will be available in the Library of the House shortly.

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown of the amount of money spent per pupil in each of the key stages in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales. [22028]
  37
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on expenditure per pupil is not available for key stages. The latest available data show that in Wales in 1994–95 the net revenue expenditure per pupil in LEA maintained nursery and primary schools was £1,637 and in LEA maintained secondary schools £2,264.

  Farm Support
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors led to the delay in payment of premiums by his Department to farmers; and what measures he proposes to ensure that similar delays do not occur. [22462]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Processing of EC funded scheme payments has been delayed by the need to comply with additional EC data requirements. Any UK payments made without this supporting information would have been disallowed. The necessary computer reprogramming work is now largely complete but has unfortunately led to delays. Work is underway to implement improved information systems for the Welsh Office Agriculture Department.

  Teaching Posts
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the change in the number of teaching posts in each of the local education authorities in Wales in the current financial year. [22600]

  Mr. Hain
  Information on the number of teaching posts in the current financial year is not yet available centrally. Figures should be available in the spring.

  Schools (Spending)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of total revenue spending dedicated to schools in each of the local education authorities in Wales during the current financial year. [22602]

  Full and part time pupils by local education authority: numbers and changes, 1995 to 1997

  Number of full and part time pupils1 at January:

  Change from:

  Local education authority area

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995 to 1996

  1996 to 1997

  Blaenau Gwent

  12,531

  12,586

  12,572

  +55

  -14

  Bridgend

  22,684

  23,021

  23,154

  +337

  +133

  Caerphilly

  31,130

  31,202

  31,391

  +72

  +189

  Cardiff

  51,312

  52,056

  52,619

  +744

  +563

  Carmarthenshire

  27,750

  27,918

  27,903

  +168

  -15

  Ceredigion

  10,744

  10,783

  10,797

  +39

  +14

  Conwy

  15,679

  16,078

  16,494

  +399

  +416

  Denbighshire

  15,652

  15,803

  16,128

  +151

  +325

  Flintshire

  25,356

  25,538

  25,567

  +182

  +29

  Gwynedd

  17,503

  17,715

  17,690

  +212

  -25

  Isle of Anglesey

  11,434

  11,577

  11,526

  +143

  -51

  Merthyr Tydfil

  11,760

  11,729

  11,670

  -31

  -59

  Monmouthshire

  12,390

  12,704

  12,886

  +314

  +182

  Neath Port Talbot

  23,780

  23,656

  23,695

  -124

  +39

  Newport

  24,976

  25,059

  25,189

  +83

  +130

  Pembrokeshire

  19,234

  19,122

  19,274

  -112

  +152

  Powys

  19,308

  19,763

  19,874

  +455

  +111

  38
  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Schools budget as a percentage of local authority education budget and total revenue budget—1997–981

  Schools as a percentage of education budget

  Schools as a percentage of total budget

  Blaenau Gwent

  86

  32

  Bridgend

  89

  36

  Caerphilly

  90

  36

  Cardiff

  85

  31

  Carmarthenshire

  86

  34

  Ceredigion

  83

  34

  Conwy

  85

  29

  Denbighshire

  87

  31

  Flintshire

  89

  37

  Gwynedd

  84

  29

  Isle of Anglesey

  86

  34

  Merthyr Tydfil

  92

  36

  Monmouthshire

  84

  36

  Neath Port Talbot

  89

  33

  Newport

  87

  36

  Pembrokeshire

  86

  36

  Powys

  86

  35

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  91

  37

  Swansea

  85

  32

  Torfaen

  85

  37

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  85

  33

  Wrexham

  86

  33

  Wales average

  87

  34

  1 Schools budget includes pre-primary education, other than that funded by nursery voucher provision, primary, secondary and special education, and payments to government in respect of grant maintained schools. Education budget includes schools, other continuing education, education service strategy and regulation and gross expenditure on mandatory student awards. All budgets are gross of government grants but net of income from sales, fees and charges.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes in pupil numbers have been recorded in each of the local education authorities in Wales over the past three years. [22601]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  39

  Full and part time pupils by local education authority: numbers and changes, 1995 to 1997

  Number of full and part time pupils1 at January:

  Change from:

  Local education authority area

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995 to 1996

  1996 to 1997

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  43,699

  43,855

  43,871

  +156

  +16

  Swansea

  38,943

  38,874

  38,916

  -69

  +42

  Torfaen

  17,160

  17,294

  17,370

  +134

  +76

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  20,691

  21,070

  21,022

  +379

  -48

  Wrexham

  20,328

  20,320

  20,185

  -8

  -135

  Wales

  494,044

  497,723

  499,793

  +3,679

  +2,070

  Pupils at LEA and grant maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Source:

  Schools" Census.

  Chiropody Patients
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the age profile of NHS chiropody patients for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95 in Wales. [22543]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The recipients of community chiropody services in Wales are predominantly people aged 65 and over, as can be seen from the table. Further breakdown by age profile is not available.

  Persons treated

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Elderly persons1

  140,470

  136,438

  137,264

  Other2

  34,390

  23,056

  34,636

  Total

  174,860

  159,494

  171,900

  1 Aged 65 and over.

  2 Includes physically handicapped/disabled, school children, and others, for example with diabetic conditions.

  Research Groups
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the research assessment exercise ratings for each of the individual research groups included in the University of Aberystwyth Institute of Earth Studies RAE submission. [22212]

  Mr. Hain
  The research groups of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Institute of Earth Studies were not given individual ratings.

  National Referendum
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the counting procedures used in the National Referendum. [22862]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Allegations have appeared in the press suggesting that the procedures for counting the votes in the referendum were defective. These allegations are false.

  The counting arrangements were under the general supervision of the Chief Counting Officer, Professor Eric Sunderland, on whose appointment I consulted opposition parties. Professor Sunderland appointed Counting Officers for each of the 22 local authority areas in Wales; each Counting Officer was responsible, subject to any directions issued by the Chief Counting Officer, to make appropriate arrangements for the various counts.

  Parliament provided that the referendum should be conducted in accordance with the Parliamentary Elections Rules. Counting Officers were therefore responsible,
  40
  having regard to any advice issued by the Chief Counting Officer, for applying to the particular circumstances of individual ballot papers rules 47(1) and (2). These provide, inter alia, for any ballot paper which is unmarked or void for uncertainty to be rejected; but that a paper marked other than in the proper place, or otherwise by means of a cross, or by more than one mark, could be accepted as a valid vote if the voter's intention clearly emerged.

  In the course of the counting on the night of 18 September, the Chief Counting Officer had occasion to issue supplementary advice on the treatment of ballot papers marked "No" opposite the "I do not agree" box. I am writing to the hon. Member separately setting out in details the circumstances as to how and why this occurred, and am placing a copy of my letter in the Library. I understand that 20 out of 22 Counting Officers followed that advice, but that the advice did not reach the Counting Officers in Pembrokeshire and Powys. The total of votes rejected in those two areas as being unmarked or void for uncertainty was 323; had the Chief Counting Officer's advice reached those Counting Officers, some of those votes might well have been added to the total of valid "No" votes. The likely consequence of 20 out of 22 Counting Officers following that advice is that the total valid "No" vote across Wales was increased by several thousands.

  Counting Officers made decisions on the validity of individual ballot papers in the light of comments made by observers representing all political parties and both Yes and No campaigns. Following completion of each count, all Counting Officers were asked whether there were any special or unusual features of the count which should be drawn to the Chief Counting Officer's attention, and whether any of the observers were dissatisfied with the conduct of the count. There were no such features, and in no case were observers reported as dissatisfied with the conduct of the count. It is clear therefore that in the opinion of the independent observers scrutinising the counts, decisions made on the admissibility of doubtful votes were made fairly and properly.

  Subsequently, in one authority (Caerphilly County Borough Council) complaints were made about aspects of the count. Having become aware of these in my constituency capacity, I referred them to the Counting Officer. He subsequently wrote to me confirming that the matters raised had been resolved. I understand that further queries were raised, and that the Counting Officer answered these points to the satisfaction of the inquirers in a letter dated 28 October.
  41
  Following completion of the referendum, one letter was received in my Department addressed to Professor Sunderland, complaining about delays in announcing the results from each area and also referring to spoilt ballots. Professor Sunderland's responsibilities having come to an end, the correspondent received a reply from my officials—copies are in the Libraries. The correspondent has recently written again, and will receive a full reply as soon as possible. The Welsh Office has also received one letter in the last few days addressed to Professor Sunderland referring to the recent allegations; it will be replied to by my officials. Otherwise, my Department has received no other correspondence on this matter. I am advised that no other complaints have been made to Counting Officers in any authority in Wales by any member of the public (including those who had served as observers during the various counts).

  Finally, I should make clear that I have received no representations calling for an inquiry, and I have no intention of calling for an inquiry on this matter.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he has issued to government departments concerning the recruitment and retention of Black and Asian staff. [21870]

  The Prime Minister
  Recruitment to the Civil Service is based on the fundamental principle that appointments must be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.

  The programme for Action to achieve equality of opportunity in the Civil Service for ethnic minority people includes guidance for Departments and Agencies about recruitment and retention. The guidance is intended to ensure that selection criteria and procedures are applied fairly and consistently to all applicants.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the objectives, budget and staffing levels of the Social Exclusion Unit. [21679]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer to my answer of 8 December 1997,Official Report, columns 408–10, to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman).

  The Unit's running costs are met by contributions from the seconding Government departments or seconding or sponsoring organisations.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings of the EU Council of Ministers the Secretary of State for Scotland will chair during the United Kingdom presidency. [22043]

  The Prime Minister
  As in 1992, when the United Kingdom last held the Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers, there are no definite plans for the Secretary of State for Scotland to chair any EU Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels or Luxembourg. Scottish Office 42
  Ministers can and do attend Council Meetings on behalf of the United Kingdom and that will continue to be the case during the UK Presidency.

  Cabinet Committees (Legislation)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to refer all proposals for and the detail of primary legislation to(a) Cabinet, (b) Ministerial Cabinet committees and (c) other Cabinet committees and sub-committees. [21895]

  The Prime Minister
  I set out the guidance that is used to determine the means by which collective decisions are made in my answer to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 269. These procedures apply equally to proposals for primary legislation.

  Political Modernisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1997,Official Report, column 408, if he will define the modernisation of the political system. [20399]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: Our plans for modernising the political system were set out clearly in our General Election manifesto. Our aim is the democratic renewal of our country through decentralisation, the elimination of excessive government secrecy, and cleaning up politics. We have already begun the decentralisation of power to Scotland and Wales, endorsed by referendums. We have put forward proposals for giving Londoners a real voice through a strategic authority and directly elected mayor. We have established an independent Commission on voting systems to consider and recommend an alternative to the present for Parliamentary Elections to be put before the people in a referendum. We have brought forward a Bill to introduce proportional representation for the European Elections. We have published our proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, to transform the culture of government and make it more open and accountable. Together this amounts to significant progress in the modernisation of our political system.

  Expos
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 1997,Official Report, column 695, if he will make it his policy to assign lead responsibility for the promotion and co-ordination of bids by towns or cities in the United Kingdom to host an expo to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. [21920]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: Further to my answer of 12 December 1997, Official Report, column 695, the Government would need to decide in the light of any bid which Whitehall Department was the most appropriate focal point for co-ordination.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December 1997,Official Report, column 354, what assessment he has made of the limits of

  43
  suffering by Iraqi children, consequent upon the imposition of a regime of sanctions, which are consistent with foreign policy based on ethical considerations. [20982]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The children of Iraq have suffered greatly, as have all Iraqis, at the hands of a ruthless dictator who cares nothing for their welfare.

  Unlike Saddam Hussein, we are concerned at their plight: our co-sponsorship of oil-for-food resolutions has ensured that food and medical supplies reach the people of Iraq; we have also provided £94 million in humanitarian aid since 1991, much of which is specifically dedicated to projects for children.

  Christmas Tree, Downing Street
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages of using photovoltaic solar energy to power the lights on the Christmas tree at Downing Street; and what representations he has received on this subject. [22060]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: I have not made an assessment, nor am I aware of having received any representations on this subject. However, as my hon. Friend may be aware, photovoltaics are at their least effective during the short winter days and power is needed at night when the panels would not work.

  President Clinton
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister if, when he next visits President Clinton, he will invite him to visit Scotland. [22157]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: It is too early to say where we will invite President Clinton to visit when he next comes to the United Kingdom.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Buildings (Access)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy of the Church Commissioners on charging for access to church buildings. [20235]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners. Policy on admission charges to a church rests with the individual Parochial Church Councillor, in the case of a cathedral, with the Chapter Office. I would, however, be happy to convey any representations that the hon. Gentleman might wish to make to the appropriate authority.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many redundant churches in 1990 have been sold and converted for use by other faiths. [20237]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  No Church of England redundant church has been disposed of to a non-Christian denomination for worship since 1990.

  Poverty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission to ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the expenditure on the Church Commission on Poverty. [20238]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The primary responsibility of the Church Commissioners is to provide support for the ministry of the Church of England, particularly in areas of need and opportunity. Over £14 million per annum is targeted on the needier dioceses to assist with the cost of stipends and clergy housing, on a selective basis which takes account of social and economic deprivation. The Commissioners also assist with the staffing and administrative costs of the Church Urban Fund which assists community based projects in some of the poorest areas of England's inner cities and outer estates.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Motability (Appeal)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects the appeal to be heard in relation to the motability claim of J. C. Markinson, at his home, because of his inability to gain access to the Appeals Tribunal building in Torbay. [22526]

  Mr. Denham
  Appeals in respect of claims for Disability Living Allowance are matters for the Independent Tribunal Service.

  Fuel Supplement
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when pensioner households will receive the £20 fuel supplement; and if she will make a statement. [22731]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 773–98, that extra help was being given to pensioners towards their winter fuel bills for this winter and next, a further announcement was made on 5 January. Regulations were laid before the House on 8 January and will come into effect on 16 January. The announcement will be quickly followed by a publicity campaign involving media advertising, posters and leaflets, in conjunction with Help The Aged, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The publicity will ensure that pensioners are aware of what payments they will be receiving, as well as how and when it will be paid. This will enable those entitled to a payment to plan with confidence and turn up their heating knowing that a payment will be made.

  The additional help of £400 million over this winter and next demonstrates the Government's commitment to help the elderly keep warm in their homes. Payments will be made automatically without the need to claim.

  Priority is being given to making payments to the poorest pensioners; those who receive Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. They will be entitled to a payment of £50 which should be made by the end of January.
  45
  Other eligible pensioners will receive a payment of £20 or £10. Where there is only one eligible person in a household, or the eligible person is of no fixed abode, they will receive £20; otherwise, each person will receive £10. If someone receives a £10 payment but there is no other eligible pensioner in the household, they will be able to contact the Department for the additional £10. It is estimated that over three million eligible pensioners will receive a payment for £20 and almost five million will receive £10.

  Overall, almost 10 million payments will be made to over seven million pensioner households. This programme means that the great majority of payments will be sent by the end of March.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are outstanding in respect of disallowment of invalidity benefit; and what is the average length of time for an appeal to be determined in the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency area. [21588]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of appeals outstanding in Great Britain in respect of disallowance of Incapacity Benefit (which replaced Invalidity Benefit in April 1995) for the quarter ending September 1997 is around 33,000.

  The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) is unable to provide waiting time details by Benefits Agency area as such information is not routinely kept in this format.

  ITS has recently installed a new computer system in all offices and across all jurisdictions. Average clearance time information cannot be produced presently owing to difficulties with the system's statistical reporting package. The President is hopeful that these difficulties will soon be fully resolved. However, the average clearance time for Great Britain remains at least six months.

  We are determined to reduce the current delays and complexity in the appeals system. The Social Security Bill which paves the way for modernising the delivery of Social Security, including the handling of appeals, had its third reading in the House on 10 December and is now continuing its passage through the other place. The Secretary of State will assume responsibility for the administration of the appeals system. She will set and publish demanding targets for the administration of appeals and report on the results.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment she has made of the Code of Practice on data matching published by the Audit Commission; [22131]

  (2) what progress has been made by her Department with respect to the production of a Code of Practice governing the relationship between data matching and data protection; [22130]

  (3) if the data matching authorised by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 has commenced. [22132]
  46
  Mr. Denham
  The DSS Code of Practice is still being drafted. A draft revision will be offered to the Data Protection Register and others for consideration. Data matching under the terms of the Fraud Act will commence after the Code of Practice is published.

  The Audit Commission publication was taken into account during the drafting of the DSS data matching Code of Practice, and cross references made where appropriate.

  Young People (Income Support)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Sunderland aged 16 and 17 years are in receipt of income support. [22052]

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

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many secure cycle spaces there are in her Department. [22680]

  Mr. Field
  A full breakdown of secure cycle spaces in the Department is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Such information as is available indicates that cycles could be accommodated at most locations occupied by the Department. The security of these would in the main be the responsibility of the individuals concerned.

  The approximate number of designated cycle spaces available to the Department is 4,125. Of these, it is estimated that 2,750 are in areas of limited access and 1,375 are secured by the use of padlock and chain, if fitted by the cyclist.

  Pensioners (VAT on Fuel)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the average weekly post-tax income gain for a pensioner couple on the basic state pension, in 1998–99, resulting from(a) the reduction in value added tax on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. and (b) the effective downward adjustment to the pension uprating for 1998–99 resulting from the reduction in the rate of value added tax on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.; and if she will make a statement. [15956]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. Everyone will see the benefit of the reduction of VAT on fuel in their winter fuel bills. In addition, this winter and next, pensioner households in receipt of Income Support will receive an additional payment of £50 to help with fuel costs and other pensioner households will receive £20.

  On average, a couple receiving the basic State Pension will be 35p a week better off at present, and 20p a week better off in real terms after the uprating, taking into account the reduction in the rate of VAT on fuel.

TREASURY

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of Sir Donald MacDougall's report on monetary union. [12339]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The "Report of the Study Group on the Role of Public Finance in the European Integration" was published in April 1977 by the Commission of the European Communities. The Study Group was chaired by Sir Donald MacDougall and the report is frequently known as the MacDougall Report. Treasury officials have been endeavouring to obtain a copy of this report from the European Commission so that it can be placed in the Library. As soon as copies become available they will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which authority and what method will determine(a) the European Central Bank's initial share capital, (b) the percentage of shares to be subscribed by each initially participating national bank, (c) the currency in which such shares will be subscribed and (d) subsequent decisions relating to any further state joining the single currency. [21255]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These arrangements are set out in Protocol No. 3 to the EC Treaty (on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank), notably articles 28, 29, 48, 49 and, were the UK to decide to participate in stage 3 of EMU, paragraph 10(b) of Protocol No. 11 to the EC Treaty.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Government of France on his decision not to enter EMU in 1999. [21177]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: No formal statement has been issued by the French Government. However, French Ministers have made very positive public comments about the Chancellor's statement to Parliament of 27 October 1997, Official Report, columns 583–606.

  Euro
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the euro will be legal tender in the United Kingdom. [15967]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The euro would become legal tender in the United Kingdom if we were to join the single currency. It will not be legal tender in the United Kingdom if it is introduced in other EU member states on 1 January 1999 as the United Kingdom will not join the single currency then. However, as with other major foreign currencies, it will be possible to use the euro in a wide range of transactions in the United Kingdom from that date.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 658, what representations his Department made at the time of selection of the euro symbol to ensure it was distinguishable from that for sterling where physical display of coin or note is not involved; what representations he has received from (a) software and (b) hardware specialists on problems
  48
  adapting their systems to permit computer representation of the euro symbol; and if he will estimate the projected cost of implementing changes to computer systems to accommodate the euro symbol. [20315]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The European Commission was responsible for the design of the euro symbol. The selection was carried out by market testing a number of alternative designs with the public. The Treasury has not separately made representations on the ease with which the euro currency symbol is distinguishable from the pound sterling symbol.

  The Treasury is in regular contact with representatives from the IT industry, including through the work of the Business Advisory Group on the practical implications of EMU.

  The use of the symbol is not required by legislation. We expect there will be a number of options for computer users wishing to display the symbol.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated administration costs to the institutions associated with individual savings accounts. [19769]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 473, to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his working party on the Information Technology Implementation of European Monetary Union has assessed the need for the computer systems involved to be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [20974]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The working party to which the hon. Member refers was commissioned by the Chancellor's Business Advisory Group to examine the Information Technology issues involved in the preparations for EMU. It has not, therefore, focused its work on the Year 2000 problem. However, the resource issues raised by the Year 2000 problem and their impact on EMU preparation have been recognised and considered by the working party.

  The Government have recently set up a ministerial committee to look into the Year 2000 issue, with the public sector coordinated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has launched the Action 2000 initiative with the aim of helping private sector businesses tackle the problem.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the likely changes in the population of the United Kingdom up to 2050 assuming no further net immigration. [21831]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest (1996–based) population projections for the United Kingdom were issued at the end of November. Details of the underlying assumptions regarding future fertility, mortality and migration were published in Population Trends 89 (page 1). Based on the
  49
  same assumptions of future fertility and mortality, but assuming zero net migration from 1997–98 onwards, the future population of the United Kingdom would be as follows:

  Projected population of the United Kingdom, assuming net zero future migration

  Millions

  Year

  Projected population

  Projected change since 1996

  1996

  58.8

  —

  2000

  59.3

  +0.5

  2010

  59.7

  +0.9

  2020

  60.1

  +1.3

  2030

  59.7

  +0.9

  2040

  58.0

  -0.8

  2050

  55.6

  -3.2

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the latest estimates by the Register General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together with the equivalent electoral registration figures also expressed as a percentage of these population figures and in ascending order. [22292]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 12 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to reply to your recent question on the latest mid-year population estimates for each district council and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together with the equivalent electoral registration figures and for the electoral figures to be expressed as a percentage of the population figures.
  The attached table provides the requested information for local authority districts. Also, as requested the table is presented in ascending order by the percentage of the estimated mid-1996 population who were registered to vote. The table shows that some districts are quite a bit below 100 per cent. and some are over 100 per cent. However, these percentages need to be treated with care, as there are a number of reasons why they do not necessarily represent the percentage of eligible persons who were on the register at their qualifying address. These reasons include the fact that the electoral register may not be up to date and so may contain some redundant entries for people who had already moved elsewhere or died at the time the register was compiled. The register contains some legitimate dual registrations, for example by students and owners of second homes. This table is voluminous and copies are being placed in the Library of the House rather than reproduced in Hansard.
  The population estimates include residents who would be ineligible to vote and so percentages below 100 per cent. would be expected in areas where there are large numbers of such people, e.g. where there is a large American air force base. On the other hand, the electoral register but not the population estimates includes overseas voters and service voters living abroad. Finally, it must be remembered that the population data are estimates, the average absolute error of the population estimates at the local authority district level was estimated to be 2.5 per cent. in the 1995 publication "Accuracy of rolled-forward population estimates in England and Wales, 1981–91" OPCS Occasional Paper 44. This average error varies between districts and, in particular, it is
  50
  generally accepted that accurate estimation of the population for small areas is particularly difficult (e.g. for areas with less than around 20,000 people).
  Statistics on the number of people registered on the 1997 electoral rolls by parliamentary constituency was published on the 18 December 1997 in Series EL no. 24 "1997 Electoral Statistics", an ONS reference volume. They were first published by ONS on the 26 March 1997 in a Population and Health Monitor, series EL 97/1. Copies of these publications are available in the House of Commons library.
  ONS do not produce population estimates for parliamentary constituencies. The main use of the Registrar General's population estimates is to distribute central government revenue support grant resources between local authorities and for this purpose the estimates are required by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions at local authority district level.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the unemployment percentage for each of the standard regions of England in(a) September 1981, (b) September 1985, (c) September 1989, (d) September 1993 and (e) September 1997. [21781]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tom King, dated 12 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on the unemployment rate in each of the standard regions of England at various dates.
  The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. The ILO unemployment rate is defined as the number ILO employed as a proportion of all those either in employment or ILO unemployed.
  The ILO measure of unemployment has been used in the LFS since 1984. The LFS was conducted annually each spring between 1984 and 1991 and has been conducted quarterly since spring 1992. Tables for each Standard Statistical Region (SSR) covering the period from spring 1984 to spring 1997 are published in the Labour Force Survey Historical Supplement, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons library (ONS, December 1997, pp95–105). The ONS has recently adopted a new regional classification based on the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions, but there is no LFS data available on this basis prior to spring 1992.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system which records all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or National Insurance (NI) credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign on the designated day are counted. Claimant count levels and rates are available by SSR for each of the periods specified, from Nomis which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Inland Revenue
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account the Inland Revenue policy takes of levels of unemployment and social deprivation when considering the merger or closure of its offices. [22231]
  51
  Dawn Primarolo
  In considering which of its offices should merge or close, the Inland Revenue's main objectives are to improve the quality of its service to the public and to achieve cost efficiency.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed new office structures for Inland Revenue offices on(a) processing of self assessment tax returns, (b) mail clearance times, (c) clearance of CY-2 open cases, (d) the handling of telephone and fax inquiry calls, (e) the handling of debt and return management lists and (f) dealings with employer compliance system reviews. [22232]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All the available evidence so far indicates that taken, as a whole, the performance of new-style offices created under the Inland Revenue's restructuring programme is similar to the offices they replaced. These results are being achieved with fewer resources and reduced running costs.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of maintaining Inland Revenue offices in areas which produce high black economy yields. [22229]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is engaged in a major programme of change which includes restructuring its local office network. Before any office is closed under that programme, the Department and Ministers need to be satisfied that the new offices will deliver an enhanced compliance performance including maintaining or improving black economy yields.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the Inland Revenue's offer proposal to close offices in the South East region. [22230]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is engaged in a major programme of change which includes restructuring its local office network. Before any office is closed under that programme, the Department and Ministers need to be satisfied that the new offices will deliver good quality customer service, enhanced compliance performance and reduced costs.

  Orange Juice
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated financial loss to the EU of duties forgone in respect of imports of Brazilian orange juice falsely labelled as made in Israel. [22194]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

  Tax (Channel Islands and Isle of Man)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss with the responsible authorities in the Channel Islands and in the Isle of Man the closer harmonisation of their respective tax regimes with that of the UK. [22239]

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has conducted with the authorities of the Channel Islands regarding taxation. [21328]
  52
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are responsible for their own tax laws. The UK Government maintain close contact at all levels with their dependent territories within the framework of the constitutional arrangements, on a wide range of issues, including tax matters.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22688]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are 60 secure covered cycle spaces in the Treasury's Headquarters building in Parliament Street and five covered spaces at its Allington Towers office.

  Purchasing Power
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average purchasing power of the pound in(a) 1967, (b) 1977 and (c) 1987 relative to its current purchasing power. [22567]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr David Winnick, dated 12 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to reply to your recent question on the average purchasing power of the pound in earlier years relative to its current purchasing power.
  The figures requested are shown in the table below, and have been calculated using the all items Retail Prices Index (RPI). For more information on the method of calculation, you may wish to consult the RPI Business Monitor (MM23), a copy of which is held in the House of Commons library.

  Internal purchasing power of the pound (pence)

  Pence

  November 1997

  100

  1987 average

  64

  1977 average

  29

  1967 average

  10

  The above means that a basket of goods, which cost £1 to buy in November 1997, could have been purchased in 1987 for sixty-four pence.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the departure or Elizabeth Bukspan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and
  Development. [20805]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Elizabeth Bukspan's departure as Director for France reflected action taken by the French authorities and therefore the Chancellor is not in a position to make a statement.

  Green Pound Fluctuations
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the EU programme to compensate for fluctuations in the valuation of the green pound would come from United Kingdom funds; and what estimate he has made of the total cost which this would represent. [21850]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: Under EU rules, the UK could pay up to £980 million to compensate farmers for any income effects arising from the four appreciable revaluations of the sterling green rate in 1997. Up to half of this sum—£490 million—could be reclaimed from the EU budget, with any funds in excess of this coming from the UK budget. However, because of the abatement applied to the UK's EU contribution, the Exchequer bears a significant share of new CAP expenditure in the UK which is reimbursed by the EU budget. Taking the abatement effect into account, payment of the full £980 million available to the UK would result in costs to the Exchequer of around £840 million (about 85 per cent. of the total amount).

  Aging Population
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) the likely long-term effects of an aging population on the economy and (b) the steps which the Treasury will need to take in response. [22063]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The Government keep policy issues likely to arise from changing demographic patterns across the whole range of Government policy under constant review.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review provides a structured framework in which all Government departments, together with the Treasury, can consider what policy action might be needed to respond to projected demographic changes over the long term.

  In particular, the Government have made clear that they will address the effects of demographic change and aging in the context of its Pensions Review, launched by the Secretary of State for Social Security on July 17. The Royal Commission on Long-term Care will also have regard to demographic change in its work, as it examines and then makes recommendations on short and long-term options for a sustainable system of funding of long-term care for elderly people in the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Group 4 Securities
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his Answer of 8 December 1997 to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith),Official Report, column 434, how many of the former 40 officials of his Department who have taken paid employment with private prison contractors after leaving his Department had responsibilities in relation to overseeing, managing or inspecting private sector contracts; if he will list the (a) contracts for which they
  54
  had responsibility and (b) the dates those employees left his Department and the dates they started employment in the private sector. [21585]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: The information requested is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Campsfield House Detention Centre
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serious incident forms were completed in Campsfield House Detention Centre during(a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) 1996. [21345]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: Group Four (Total Security) Ltd. staff employed at Campsfield House detention centre routinely submit incident reports to their site managers about any event which affects the running of the centre. These reports cover incidents ranging in seriousness from the minor to the more important. The reports are copied to Immigration Service staff on site, and those which are of an urgent or serious nature receive immediate attention.

  The centre opened on 29 November 1993. Accurate statistics relating to incident reports were not kept in the form requested before 1995.

  In 1995, there were a total of 592 reports submitted, and in 1996 the total was 322. Records relating to the reports do not at present differentiate between the relative seriousness of the incidents to which they refer. It is expected that the report submitted by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, following his unannounced short inspection of Campsfield House conducted in October 1997, will recommend that such a distinction should in future be made. The report will be published shortly.

  Prisoner Statistics
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the per capita cost of holding a(a) male and (b) female prisoner for each prison in England and Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available. [22116]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: In 1996–97, the most recent financial year for which information is available, the cost per prisoner was as follows:

  Prison name

  Cost per prisoner

  Male prisons

  Acklington

  13,968

  Albany

  20,048

  Aldington

  16,191

  Ashwell

  15,025

  Aylesbury

  28,671

  Bedford

  19,674

  Belmarsh

  30,073

  Birmingham

  16,058

  Blakenhurst

  15,831

  Blantyre House

  18,338

  Blundeston

  20,945

  Brinsford

  18,227

  Bristol

  23,541

  Brixton

  29,320

  Buckley Hall

  16,352

  Bullington

  18,352

  Camp Hill

  19,706

  55

  Prison name

  Cost per prisoner

  Canterbury

  21,935

  Cardiff

  17,052

  Castington

  20,019

  Channings Wood

  15,163

  Chelmsford

  20,340

  Coldingley

  23,954

  Dartmoor

  20,324

  Deerbolt

  18,244

  Doncaster

  14,020

  Dorchester

  19,576

  Dover

  18,295

  Downview

  19,462

  Durham1

  20,051

  Elmley

  17,524

  Erlestoke

  19,614

  Everthorpe

  16,953

  Exeter

  19,587

  Featherstone

  18,743

  Feltham

  18,036

  Ford

  13,430

  Frankland

  39,753

  Full Sutton

  40,148

  Garth

  19,231

  Gartree

  23,393

  Glen Parva

  15,362

  Gloucester

  23,995

  Grendon

  20,795

  Guys Marsh

  17,701

  Haslar

  16,727

  Hatfield

  23,994

  Haverigg

  17,295

  Hewell Grange

  13,547

  Highdown

  19,016

  Highpoint1

  16,545

  Hindley

  18,765

  Hollesley Bay

  27,246

  Holme House

  18,377

  Hull

  27,540

  Huntercombe

  20,633

  Kingston

  35,407

  Kirkham

  15,046

  Kirklevington

  18,916

  Lancaster

  20,604

  Lancaster Farms

  20,216

  Latchmere House

  14,446

  Leeds

  19,824

  Leicester

  24,618

  Lewes

  28,004

  Leyhill

  18,299

  Lincoln

  16,468

  Lindholme

  18,354

  Littlehey

  14,958

  Liverpool

  17,658

  Long Lartin

  42,222

  Low Newton1

  19,073

  Maidstone

  18,283

  Manchester

  19,090

  Moorland

  17,074

  Morton Hall

  13,250

  Mount

  12,881

  North Sea Camp

  17,153

  Northallerton

  18,712

  Norwich

  20,737

  Nottingham

  28,640

  Onley

  15,327

  Parkhurst

  43,364

  Pentonville

  18,197

  Portland

  16,727

  Preston

  25,365

  Ranby

  17,252

  Reading

  22,535

  Risley1

  19,785

  Rochester

  21,371

  Send

  17,413

  56

  Prison name

  Cost per prisoner

  Shepton Mallet

  18,893

  Shrewsbury

  18,269

  Stafford

  15,989

  Stanford Hill

  16,747

  Stocken

  15,739

  Stoke Heath

  20,951

  Sudbury

  15,969

  Swaleside

  18,363

  Swansea

  22,442

  Swinfen Hall

  22,834

  Thorn Cross

  24,187

  Usk

  19,640

  Verne

  15,094

  Wakefield

  28,219

  Wandsworth

  23,523

  Wayland

  14,410

  Wealstun Closed

  16,286

  Wellingborough

  18,417

  Werrington

  22,066

  Wetherby

  29,685

  Whatton

  18,079

  Whitemoor

  36,622

  Winchester1

  20,955

  Wolds

  20,458

  Woodhill

  21,910

  Wormwood Scrubs

  18,241

  Wymott

  16,953

  Female prisons

  Askham Grange

  18,556

  Bullwood Hall

  29,854

  Brockhill

  30,246

  Cookham Wood

  21,296

  Drake Hall

  15,236

  East Sutton Park

  18,057

  Eastwood Park

  29,428

  Holloway

  28,599

  New Hall

  26,345

  Styal

  23,984

  1 Certain male prisons may hold female prisoners (*Durham, Highpoint, Low Newton, Risley and Winchester), but no separate male and female costs are provided in these circumstances.

  Private Prisons
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many new private prisons are currently being built; and in each case what is the(a) expected date of opening and (b) planned prisoner population; [22119]

  (2) how many private prisons are currently in operation in England and Wales; and for each, when it opened, where it is located and what is its current prisoner population. [22118]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: Details of the six prisons in England and Wales that are managed by the private sector are as follows:

  HM prison

  Location

  Date of opening

  Population on 18 December 1997

  Altcourse

  Merseyside

  1 December 1997

  193

  Blakenhurst

  Worcestershire

  26 May 1993

  768

  Buckley Hall

  Greater Manchester

  14 December 1994

  836

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire

  20 June 1994

  1,053

  Parc

  South Wales

  17 November 1997

  215

  Wolds

  Humberside

  6 April 1992

  402

  57
  Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall, Doncaster and the Wolds prisons were transferred from Prison Service management to private sector management on the dates shown. Altcourse and Parc were built under the Private Finance Initiative.

  One prison is under construction in England and Wales under the Private Finance Initiative: Her Majesty's Prison Lowdham Grange, Nottinghamshire, which is scheduled to open by the end of February 1998 with planned capacity for 500 prisoners when it is fully operational.

  Prison Workshops
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to involve private companies in(a) consulting and (b) administration in respect of the prison workshops at HMP Garth and HMP Wymott; and if he will list the companies which have been invited to tender. [22062]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 14 November 1997, Official Report, columns 688–89, there are no plans to change the arrangements for the provision and administration of prison workshops at either Garth or Wymott.

  Both establishments undertake a small percentage of work for the private sector (most work undertaken is for the internal prison market). Prisoners produce and assemble a range of goods for mostly locally based companies.

  Wymott is one of 18 establishments selected for additional support and funding by the Prison Service as part of the wider Prison Service Workshop Expansion Programme. In order to meet the overall aims of the programme, Wymott and Prison Service headquarters will be jointly involved in seeking additional work from the private sector. Negotiations are currently underway with a local based company, Giraffe Products Limited. for the manufacture of music stands. It is anticipated that this will be a Private Finance Initiative, requiring the company to provide additional capital for the purchase of either plant or equipment to undertake the work.

  The Company's involvement is restricted to that of customer.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those persons aged(a) 15 and (b) 16 years have been remanded (i) in adult prisons and (ii) in total, in each month in each of the last five years; and what was the average period of detention in each
  year. [21600]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The information on the number of remand receptions for untried juvenile prisoners is given in the following tables,
  58
  along with the estimated average periods in custody for all juvenile untried prisoners.

  Table 1: Receptions of 15 and 16 year old untried prisoners into prisons in England and Wales, 1993–97

  Age

  15 Adult prisons1

  All Receptions

  16 Adult prisons1

  All Receptions

  1993

  January

  —

  24

  3

  60

  February

  1

  35

  —

  76

  March

  —

  50

  3

  90

  April

  —

  34

  3

  69

  May

  —

  27

  —

  61

  June

  —

  40

  4

  68

  July

  1

  45

  1

  78

  August

  —

  30

  —

  63

  September

  —

  32

  1

  83

  October

  —

  34

  —

  62

  November

  —

  44

  1

  58

  December

  —

  34

  —

  72

  Total

  2

  429

  16

  840

  1994

  January

  —

  39

  —

  76

  February

  1

  44

  1

  80

  March

  3

  59

  1

  82

  April

  —

  49

  1

  90

  May

  1

  32

  —

  91

  June

  2

  67

  —

  99

  July

  2

  46

  5

  78

  August

  7

  53

  7

  99

  September

  2

  44

  13

  93

  October

  3

  60

  8

  73

  November

  6

  71

  10

  106

  December

  9

  49

  7

  77

  Total

  36

  613

  53

  1,044

  1995

  January

  6

  52

  16

  99

  February

  9

  64

  10

  83

  March

  7

  65

  14

  114

  April

  2

  28

  11

  86

  May

  7

  53

  14

  97

  June

  5

  46

  6

  84

  July

  5

  56

  21

  108

  August

  7

  40

  15

  110

  September

  10

  47

  7

  116

  October

  8

  56

  9

  94

  November

  8

  54

  9

  114

  December

  5

  43

  6

  77

  Total

  80

  604

  136

  1,182

  1996

  January

  9

  72

  7

  99

  February

  6

  40

  18

  103

  March

  4

  63

  9

  93

  April

  3

  56

  12

  105

  May

  8

  66

  15

  132

  June

  6

  50

  15

  95

  July

  5

  52

  16

  106

  August

  3

  57

  15

  112

  September

  8

  58

  14

  102

  October

  8

  55

  17

  118

  November

  6

  54

  8

  110

  December

  3

  62

  9

  80

  Total

  69

  685

  155

  1,255

  59

  Table 1: Receptions of 15 and 16 year old untried prisoners into prisons in England and Wales, 1993–97

  Age

  15 Adult prisons1

  All Receptions

  16 Adult prisons1

  All Receptions

  19972

  January

  6

  67

  11

  109

  February

  3

  42

  2

  72

  March

  2

  53

  8

  95

  April

  3

  51

  4

  109

  May

  1

  50

  —

  101

  June

  2

  65

  —

  97

  July

  4

  49

  2

  116

  August

  —

  41

  3

  86

  September

  1

  57

  2

  96

  October

  1

  50

  —

  100

  Total

  23

  525

  32

  981

  1 Most are held in Remand facilities for young offenders only.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Table 2: Average time held in custody1 for untried prisoners aged under 17 in Prisons in England and Wales, 1993–97

  Year

  Untried

  1993

  25

  1994

  32

  1995

  28

  1996

  32

  19972

  34

  1 The average days in custody are estimated from the population held on 30 June each year and the total number of initial receptions in the year. The estimate is subject to some uncertainty due to the small numbers held.

  2 Provisional estimate for January to October 1997. Based on the population on 31 October 1997.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons aged (i) under 15 years, (ii) under 16 years, (iii) under 17 years and (iv) under 18 years were being held in Lewes prison in each month between January 1994 and November 1997 inclusive. [21439]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Population of persons aged under 18 in Lewes prison, January 1994 to November 1997

  On last day of month

  Age Under 181

  1994

  January

  1

  February

  2

  March

  3

  April

  6

  May

  1

  June

  3

  July

  2

  August

  4

  September

  4

  October

  5

  November

  9

  December

  5

  1995

  January

  4

  February

  5

  March

  5

  60

  Population of persons aged under 18 in Lewes prison, January 1994 to November 1997

  On last day of month

  Age Under 181

  April

  7

  May

  6

  June

  8

  July

  6

  August

  4

  September

  7

  October

  5

  November

  5

  December

  5

  1996

  January

  4

  February

  6

  March

  5

  April

  8

  May

  5

  June

  6

  July

  13

  August

  14

  September

  12

  October

  13

  November

  7

  December

  8

  1997

  January

  5

  February

  6

  March

  3

  April

  6

  May

  2

  June

  2

  July

  1

  August

  0

  September

  2

  October

  1

  November

  0

  1 Lewes prison only receives inmates aged 17 years or over on remand and sentenced inmates aged 18 years or over. There are therefore no inmates aged under 15 or 16 held in the prison for the period specified.

  Community Relations Unit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Black and (b) Asian people are employed in the Community Relations Unit. [21872]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on ethnic origin is usually collected by means of a voluntary self-classification questionnaire under an assurance that it will be used for statistical purposes only and not disclosed without the subject's consent. The Civil Service Management Code requires Departments and agencies to take appropriate steps, as described in the Model Code of Practice on Ethnic Monitoring issued by the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), to safeguard the confidentiality of ethnic origin data. The Model Code of Practice on Ethnic Monitoring requires that information on ethnic origin is collected on the understanding that it will be treated as confidential, and that the ethnic origin of identifiable individuals will not be made known without their consent.

  Babies (Prison)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies have been held in prison
  units in each year since 1992; what was the average time
  61
  each baby spent in prison in each year; what category of prisoner was each mother; and if he will make a statement. [21535]

  Ms. Quin
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Information on the number of babies accommodated in prison mother and baby units is given in the following

  Number of babies accommodated in each prison in each year since 19921 and the average length of stay

  1992 Number of babies accommodated

  Average length of stay (Months)

  1993 Number of babies accommodated

  Average length of stay (Months)

  1994 Number of babies accommodated

  Average length of stay (Months)

  1995 Number of babies accommodated

  Average length of stay (Months)

  1996 Number of babies accommodated

  Average length of stay (Months)

  Styal mother and baby unit

  20

  9–12

  27

  12

  22

  9

  25

  8

  26

  9

  Holloway mother and baby unit

  Figures not collected until January 1993

  25

  5

  48

  6

  48

  6

  29

  5

  Askham Grange mother and baby unit

  29

  5

  32

  6

  32

  8

  42

  5

  38

  5

  New Hall mother and baby unit (Unit opened May 1995)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220

  3

  18

  4

  Total

  49

  84

  102

  135

  111

  1 Figures for 1997 not yet available.

  2 May to December 1995.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total female prison population, by category and in total, on 1 January for each of the last 10 years; what is the current female prison population, by category and in total; and what is the projected female prison population for 1 January 1998. [21534]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The available information for the female prison population is for 31 December each year and is given in the table. The breakdown as at 30 November 1997 is also included in the table. The number of females in prison is expected to be 2,740 on 31 December 1997 (570 remand, 2,150 sentenced and 20 non-criminals).

  Female prison population by type of custody on 31 December 1987–96 and on 30 November 1997

  Type of custody on 31
  December

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Non-criminal

  Total

  1987

  467

  1,222

  7

  1,696

  1988

  443

  1,268

  4

  1,715

  1989

  406

  1,231

  —

  1,637

  1990

  350

  1,102

  3

  1,455

  1991

  346

  1,146

  7

  1,499

  1992

  299

  1,054

  —

  1,353

  1993

  388

  1,147

  38

  1,573

  1994

  456

  1,292

  24

  1,772

  1995

  435

  1,472

  23

  1,930

  1996

  554

  1,789

  31

  2,374

  30 November 1997

  671

  2,196

  21

  2,888

  Primate Imports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ban the import of primates from Indonesia; [22378]
  62
  table. Women prisoners are categorised as either suitable for closed or open prisons. The mother and baby units at Holloway. New Hall and Styal are all in closed prisons. The mother and baby unit at Askham Grange is in an open prison.

  (2) what action he has taken to investigate alleged breaches in the provision of the CITES convention in respect of the importing of primates from Indonesia. [22385]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since 1996, approval for the acquisition of primates from overseas sources for use in scientific procedures has been given only if the Home Office is satisfied that the conditions at the breeding and supplying centre are acceptable. Each batch of animals acquired from overseas sources must be separately authorised and the transport arrangements approved by the Home Office.

  After each batch of animals is received, the recipient must send to the Home Office:

  (a) confirmation that the animals were shipped according to the prior agreement and that they arrived safely;

  (b) life-time records for each individual animal;

  (c) the report of the veterinary inspection on arrival; and

  (d) details of any morbidity and mortality arising during the first four weeks following arrival in the United Kingdom.

  An application was received during 1996 for approval to acquire macaques from a particular centre in Indonesia. A member of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate had previously visited this centre. There had been some deficiencies in the standards of care and accommodation, but these had been corrected before the application was submitted. The application was approved.

  No animals have been imported into the United Kingdom from this source for over 12 months.

  Recent reports emanating from the United States of America suggested that the centre had been involved in the transportation of pregnant and infant animals and that the levels of care and accommodation during transport were inadequate. A member of the Inspectorate investigated these reports during a recent visit to the United States of America and found evidence to support

  63
  the allegations. Approval to acquire primates from this source for use in the United Kingdom was immediately withdrawn. Any future application to acquire animals from this centre will be considered only if the applicant can demonstrate that these problems have been rectified and will not recur.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22673]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office Central London Estates provides 41 secure spaces for bicycles which meets the present demand. Figures for the rest of the Home Office estate are not available centrally and can be collected only at disproportionate cost. As a former secretary of the House of Commons cycling club, I am very willing to do all I can to facilitate the use of bicycles by staff of this Department.

  Ministerial Group on the Family
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the scope of the work of the Ministerial Group on the Family includes measures to strengthen the institution of marriage; [22713]

  (2) what is the definition of family which is being used by the Ministerial Group on the Family. [22710]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have a manifesto commitment to strengthen family life. The Ministerial Group is interpreting this remit widely and is not focusing on particular family structures.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) the agenda for, (b) the minutes of and (c) a list of those attending the Ministerial Group on the Family. [22711]

  Mr. Michael
  The group comprises:My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Chair) and me together with:
  my noble and learned Friend the Solicitor General;
  my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury;
  my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health;
  my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio;
  my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Howarth);
  my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Ms Roche);
  my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department;
  my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Social Security (Ms Ruddock); and
  the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment. Transport and the Regions (Mr. Raynsford).

  There are no plans to publish the agenda or notes of the meetings.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to hold any meetings of the Ministerial Group on the Family in public. [22712]

  Mr. Michael
  No.
  64
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes that the Ministerial Group on the Family should produce a report. [22716]

  Mr. Michael
  The Ministerial Group is intended to make a positive contribution to policy-making as it affects the family.

  One report, on a seminar organised on behalf of the Group and entitled "Promoting Successful Parenting", is already available free from the Home Office Special Conference Unit. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Young Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15 and 16-year-olds were held on remand in prison service accommodation at the most recent date for which figures are available. [22708]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table. All the prisoners were male.

  Persons aged 15 or 16 held in Prison Service accommodation on remand, by category of remand1

  Age

  Convicted unsentenced

  Untried

  Total

  15

  31

  44

  75

  16

  61

  112

  173

  1 Figures for 30 November 1997 (provisional).

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he plans to end the remands of 15 and 16-year-olds to prison accommodation; [22706]

  (2) how many of the places in local authority secure accommodation which are (a) currently available and (b) planned within the next five years he plans to use for the accommodation of 15 and 16-year-olds on remand; [22705]

  (3) if he plans to require (a) medical reports and (b) other reports to be obtained on 15 and 16–year-olds before they can be remanded to prison service accommodation on their physical or emotional immaturity or propensity to cause self-harm; [22707]

  (4) how many new places in local authority secure accommodation have become available in each year since 1991; [22703]

  (5) how many of the new places which he plans to make available in local authority secure accommodation within the next five years were not planned for on 1 May 1997; [22704]

  (6) what representations he has received on the practice of remanding 15 and 16-year-olds into prison service accommodation; [22701]

  (7) how many places in local authority secure accommodation he plans lo make available in the next (a) five years and (b) 10 years. [22702]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government want earlier and more effective intervention so as to prevent young people graduating to the stage where secure accommodation is needed. The youth justice reform programme will include measures for improving the delivery of youth justice services. One of these proposals will include placing a
  65
  new duty on local authorities to provide appropriate access to youth justice services and bail support which, coupled with the Government's plans to speed up the existing youth justice process, should help to reduce the existing pressures on the juvenile remand system.

  There will be occasions when it is necessary for the courts to remand certain juveniles to secure accommodation for their own or the public's protection. The Crime and Disorder Bill contains proposals which begin the process of implementing a policy, which the last Government failed to do, of allowing the courts to remand direct to local authority secure accommodation certain groups of juveniles, subject to certain strict criteria. These will include all 12 to 14-year-olds, 15 and 16-year-old girls and those 15 and 16-year-old boys who are adjudged by the courts to meet the definition of vulnerability, which is within the Crime and Disorder Bill, and where a place has been identified in advance.

  Before a court decides to remand in such circumstances, it will be required to consult a probation officer, a social worker or a member of a youth offending team and consider such information as is appropriate. This may include reports on the vulnerability of 15 and 16-year-olds.

  In February 1991, the previous Government indicated its intention of stopping prison remands for 15 and 16-year-old boys, but failed to provide the means to that end. Although a building programme was eventually put in place to provide the 170 new secure places in local authority accommodation, which the then Government estimated as necessary in 1991 to cater for the introduction of court-ordered remands to local authority secure accommodation for all 12 to 16-year-olds, seven years later these new places are still not fully available. This programme should be completed later this year. The number of juveniles remanded in security has increased significantly since that building programme began and prison remands of 15 and 16-year-old boys now stand within the 250 and 300 range. The demand from this group alone would significantly out strip the capacity of the local authority secure estate even when the existing building programme has been completed. It would be unsafe at this stage to change the existing arrangements for these boys.

  The Government hope that the Crime and Disorder Bill will receive Royal Assent by next summer at the latest. Separately, and in parallel, we are in the process of discussion with the local authority associations and others about the method of paying for such court-ordered secure remands, the cost of which will be met centrally. The intention is that courts should have these powers available for use, at the earliest, by October 1998. Once the courts begin to make use of these powers the Government will be in a better position to assess the feasibility of extending the provisions to all 15 and 16-year-old boys taking account of work by the Prison Service and others. The Government' s decision does not in any way represent a lessening of its commitment to end prison remands for 15 and 16-year-old boys, which it aims to do as soon as is practicable.

  Ministers have held a number of meetings with organisations, such as the Children's Society and the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders Remand Review Group, chaired by the hon.
  66
  Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), on the issue of juvenile secure remands. The Government have also received a number of responses on this issue which was contained in their consultation paper "Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System", published on 15 October 1997. A summary of the responses to this consultation paper has been placed in the Library.

  The primary purpose of the local authority secure estate is to accommodate any child who is being looked after by the local authority under the Children Act 1989. In addition, the local authority secure estate is used to hold those who are sentenced under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or those who are held on secure remand. Since 1991 the number of approved secure places1 available in England and Wales (as at 31 March) is as follows:

  Year

  Places

  1991

  290

  1992

  280

  1993

  275

  1994

  293

  1995

  270

  1996

  278

  1997

  348

  There are now 435 approved local authority secure places in England and Wales.

  Source:

  Children Accommodated in Secure Units, year ending 11 March 1997.

  The Government have instituted a review of the whole range of secure accommodation for young offenders and young people held on remand, including the local authority secure estate. The review is examining how to make better use of the existing and planned accommodation to ensure that provision is more consistent and coherent and that regimes tackle criminality and meet the educational and other needs of these young people. The Government will be considering the outcome of the review, which is due to report shortly, when planning the implementation of these proposals. The review will help inform whether there should be a further expansion of the secure estate.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15 and 16-year-olds remanded into Prison Service accommodation(a) committed suicide and (b) were involved in incidents of self-harm in the latest year for which figures are available. [22715]

  Ms Quin
  There were no suicides among 15 or 16-year-olds remanded into Prison Service custody during the calendar year 1997. There were 17 reported incidents of deliberate self-harming among 15 and 16-year-olds during the same period.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached on the compliance of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] with the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will state his reasons. [22719]
  67
  Mr. Michael
  My Department has given detailed consideration to the compatibility of the Bill with the Convention. I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Convention and we will continue to keep the subject under review as the Bill progresses.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases involving 10 to 14-year-olds it has been necessary for the prosecution to rebut the presumption of doli incapax in the last five years. [22717]

  Mr. Michael
  For all prosecutions involving children under the age of 14 years, the prosecution must rebut the presumption of doli incapax. In 1996, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 7,125 children under 14 were proceeded against in the magistrate's court.1 The presumption of doli incapax has been in force over the last five years except for a period between a Divisional court judgment in 1994, which ruled that doli incapax was no longer part of English law, and a House of Lords judgment in 1995, which re-instated it.
  1 Criminal Statistics England and Wales: Supplementary Tables 1996; Volume 1. This figure includes those who were subsequently transferred to the Crown Court.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned in respect of the operation of the presumption of doli incapax; and if he will publish it. [22718]

  Mr. Michael
  None. In March 1995, the House of Lords commented (in the case of Crown v Director of Public Prosecutions) that the common law presumption of doli incapax had been inconsistently applied and was capable of producing inconsistent results, and recommended that Parliament should review its continued retention in English law. In September 1997, the Government published, as part of the consultation document "Tackling Youth Crime", their proposals to reform doli incapax, with a preference to abolish the presumption outright. The majority of respondents to that consultation exercise who commented also favoured abolition. The Crime and Disorder Bill contains the necessary legislative provisions to abolish the presumption of doli incapax.

  Serious Sexual Offences Trials
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the role of judges in trials involving rape and other serious sexual offences so as to permit or require them to take over the cross-examination of witnesses, with particular reference to victims. [22709]

  Mr. Michael
  On 13 June, we announced an urgent, wide ranging inter-departmental review of the way in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are treated by the criminal justice system. This includes the consideration of ways to prevent unrepresented defendants from personally cross-examining victims in rape and other serious sexual offence cases. The work of the review group is nearing completion.

  Reparation Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he plans to make available to victims about reparation orders when obtaining their views about the making of such an order. [22714]

  Mr. Michael
  Currently, the Victim's Charter explains to the victims of any criminal offence what happened after that offence has been reported to the police, and outlines the standards of service that victims of crime can expect to receive from the criminal justice agencies. In the future, in cases where the court may consider imposing a reparation order, the victim will be advised that this is the case, and his view on receiving reparation from the young offender will be sought.

  The reparation order will be piloted, as set out in our White Paper "No More Excuses", published in November 1997. The pilot will allow for all aspects of the order to be evaluated and "fine-tuned", including the process of liaison with the victim. It is therefore too early to say definitively exactly what information might be given to victims when obtaining their views about receiving reparation from a young offender. However, the victims in such cases will not be asked for their view on the making of a reparation order; a victim will simply be asked whether he or she is willing to receive specific reparation from the young offender, and what form that reparation might take. There is no question of requiring victims to receive direct reparation if that is not their wish. If the victim does not with to receive such reparation, this will not preclude the making of a reparation order, as reparation may alternatively be made to the community at large.

  Drug Courts
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to promote(a) drug courts and (b) the sponsorship of drug courts. [22720]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Crime and Disorder Bill will allow courts to impose a drug treatment and testing order which will have some of the features of the drug court systems found in America. It will give courts the power to require drug misusing offenders to undergo treatment and will provide for the use of drug testing to enable the courts to monitor the progress of offenders at review hearings. We have no plans for commercial sponsorship of this initiative.

  Police (Pensions)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police widows there are in receipt of the preserved rate widow's pension, in each of the police forces of England and Wales; and what is the average weekly payment to them; [22297]

  (2) how many retired police officers, who are in receipt of a police injury pension, are now paying tax on the element repayable to police authorities as a result of the changes brought about by the introduction of incapacity benefit; [22296]
  69
  (3) how many retired police officers there are in receipt of a police injury pension payable, as a tax free allowance, under Regulation B4 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987. [22295]

  Mr. Michael
  Police Pensions Regulations are administered locally by police authorities. The information requested is not therefore available centrally and could be collected only by making inquiries of each of the 43 police forces. It could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Advisory Panel for Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference for the Advisory Panel for Animal Experimentation; who are its members; what are their qualifications and other employments; and how often the panel meets. [22697]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Advisory Panel on Animal Experiments was replaced in 1987 by the Animal Procedures Committee which was established under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  The terms of reference for the Animal Procedures Committee are set out in section 20 of the 1986 Act:
  (1) It shall be the duty of the Animal Procedures Committee to advise the Secretary of State on such matters concerned with this Act and his functions under it as the Committee may determine or as may be referred to the Committee by the Secretary of State.
  (2) In its consideration of any matter the Committee shall have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering and unnecessary use in scientific sprocedures.
  (3) The Committee may perform any of its functions by means of sub-committees and may co-opt as members of any sub-committee any persons considered by the Committee to be able to assist that sub-committee in its work.
  (4) The Committee may promote research relevant to its functions and may obtain advice or assistance from other persons with knowledge or experience appearing to the Committee to be relevant to those functions.
  (5) The Committee shall in each year make a report on its activities to the Secretary of State who shall lay copies of the report before Parliament.

  The names, qualifications and other employments of the members of the Committee are listed each year in its annual report. The current membership is as follows:
  Professor Margaret Brazier, LLB (Chairman)—Professor of Law, University of Manchester.
  Professor Ronald Anderson, BVMS PhD MRCVS—Professor Emeritus of Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool.
  Professor Margaret Boden, FBA MA ScD PhD—Professor of Philosophy and Psychology, University of Sussex.
  Dr. Yvonne Cripps, LLB LLM PhD—Reader and Director of Studies in Law, Emmanuel College Cambridge.
  Professor Robin Dunbar, BA PhD—Professor of Psychology, University of Liverpool.
  Professor Paul Flecknell, MA VetMB PhD DLAS DECVA MRCVS—Director, Comparative Biology Centre, the Medical School, University of Newcastle.
  Mr. John Gregory, FIAT Cbiol MIBiol RAnTech—Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine.
  Mrs. Judy Macarthur Clark, BVMS DLAS MRCVS—Director REC Europe Ltd. Consultant in laboratory animal science and ethics.
  70
  Miss Cindy Milburn, MSc—UK Director, International Fund for Animal Welfare.
  Dr. Ian Purchase, BVSc PhD MRCVS FRCPath FIBiol—Director, Central Toxicology Laboratories, Zeneca.
  Dr. Jacqueline Southee, PhD—Consultant in alternatives to the use of animals.
  Dr. Anthony Suckling, BSc PhD—Deputy Director, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
  Professor John Turner, BSc DPhil FRSA—Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, University of Leeds.
  Mr. Les Ward—Director, Advocates for Animals.

  We expect to announce the appointment of a new Chairman shortly and to make further appointments to the Committee within the next two months.

  The Committee met on 10 occasions during 1997. The primate sub-committee met twice and the research sub-committee met on three occasions during the year. In addition, the Committee held a two-day seminar in November and several working group meetings to progress its review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Elections
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to permit voting in national and local elections (1) to take place in venues other than traditional polling stations; [22208]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce electronic voting in national and local elections. [22209]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I will chair, has been set up to look at these and many other questions of electoral practice.

  Police (Ranks in Post)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police force the number of(a) constables, (b) sergeants and (c) other ranks in post on 1 January 1998. [22123]

  Mr. Michael
  The information collected centrally on police numbers relates to officers in post at the end of March and September each year. The table shows police numbers by rank in each force as at 30 September 1997.

  Police strength in England and Wales Total strength for ordinary duty as at 30 September 1997 (provisional) 1

  Police forces

  Constable

  Sergeant

  Other ranks

  Total police ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  2,309.50

  449.00

  214.00

  2,972.50

  Bedfordshire

  837.00

  151.10

  93.00

  1,081.10

  Cambridgeshire

  992.15

  199.20

  100.60

  1,291.95

  Cheshire

  1,579.34

  305.00

  145.00

  2,029.34

  City of London

  636.54

  118.82

  81.00

  836.36

  Cleveland

  1,153.80

  218.80

  108.00

  1,480.60

  Cumbria

  902.00

  175.00

  85.00

  1,162.00

  Derbyshire

  1,341.70

  276.00

  139.00

  1,756.70

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,274.00

  418.00

  218.00

  2,910.00

  Dorset

  971.00

  201.00

  107.00

  1,279.00

  Durham

  1,153.18

  211.60

  114.00

  1,478.78

  Dyfed Powys

  751.30

  184.00

  73.00

  1,008.30

  Essex

  2,261.26

  465.00

  218.00

  2,944.26

  Gloucestershire

  857.60

  161.60

  88.00

  1,107.20

  Greater Manchester

  5,357.88

  1,010.75

  539.00

  6,907.63

  Gwent

  947.00

  200.00

  82.00

  1,229.00

  71

  Police strength in England and Wales Total strength for ordinary duty as at 30 September 1997 (provisional) 1

  Police forces

  Constable

  Sergeant

  Other ranks

  Total police ranks

  Hampshire

  2,721.49

  511.39

  248.00

  3,480.88

  Hertfordshire

  1,340.70

  256.40

  141.00

  1,738.10

  Humberside

  1,573.25

  297.60

  159.00

  2,029.85

  Kent

  2,584.90

  470.00

  246.00

  3,300.90

  Lancashire

  2,507.70

  524.00

  249.00

  3,280.70

  Leicestershire

  1,550.69

  271.05

  136.00

  1,957.74

  Lincolnshire

  895.20

  188.70

  105.00

  1,188.90

  Merseyside

  3,265.50

  649.00

  308.00

  4,222.50

  Metropolitan Police

  20,495.58

  4,078.71

  1,816.80

  26,391.09

  Norfolk

  1,138.60

  193.35

  108.00

  1,439.95

  Northamptonshire

  935.00

  167.00

  79.00

  1,181.00

  Northumbria

  2,903.80

  507.80

  277.00

  3,688.60

  North Wales

  1,032.50

  225.00

  113.00

  1,370.50

  North Yorkshire

  1,060.58

  218.00

  104.00

  1,382.58

  Nottinghamshire

  1,811.96

  335.60

  169.50

  2,317.06

  South Wales

  2,285.60

  461.00

  243.00

  2,989.60

  South Yorkshire

  2,437.75

  473.00

  247.00

  3,157.75

  Staffordshire

  1,715.10

  339.20

  176.00

  2,230.30

  Suffolk

  933.20

  173.80

  91.00

  1,198.00

  Surrey

  1,234.27

  237.20

  136.50

  1,607.97

  Sussex

  2,339.95

  468.40

  231.67

  3,040.02

  Thames Valley

  2,876.07

  547.50

  281.75

  3,705.32

  Warwickshire

  701.60

  138.00

  74.00

  913.60

  West Mercia

  1,557.70

  305.70

  168.00

  2,031.40

  West Midlands

  5,589.00

  1,004.00

  486.00

  7,079.00

  West Yorkshire

  4,118.10

  754.10

  378.00

  5,250.20

  Wiltshire

  891.53

  187.10

  88

  1,166.63

  Total all forces

  96,822.57

  18,727.47

  9,264.82

  124,814.85

  1 Full-time equivalents

  Plastic Baton Guns
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 15 July 1997,Official Report, column 145, when the current review of baton gun guidelines which the Association of Chief Police Officers is conducting will be completed. [22480]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has nearly completed its review of the guidelines.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on mutual assistance in criminal matters. [22544]

  Mr. Michael
  The United Kingdom has been concluding bilateral agreements with other countries since 1988 with the aim of enhancing co-operation in tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking and other crimes. At the end of 1997, 37 such agreements had been concluded, of which 28 were in force. Negotiations on an agreement with the Republic of Ireland are underway following recent changes in legislation in the Republic.

  Cycling (Fixed Penalty Offences)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to include the offence of cycling on the pavement in the list of fixed penalty offences; and if he will make a statement. [22213]
  72
  Mr. Michael
  The Government intend to make cycling on the pavement a fixed penalty offence later this year. This will be done by Statutory Instrument under provisions contained in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

  Re-offending
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the collection of statistics on re-offending while in receipt of a suspended sentence; and if he will make a statement. [22590]

  Mr. Michael
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 restricted the use of fully suspended sentences to cases where a court decides the offence is so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence of not more than two years imprisonment is justified, but where there are exceptional circumstances which justify its suspension. Between 1993 and 1996, fully suspended sentences accounted for less than one per cent. of those sentenced for indictable offences.

  Statistics on re-offending, as measured by reconvictions, can be derived from regular samples drawn from the Offenders Index, a database of criminal careers maintained by the Home Office. For example, in a sample of those sentenced in 1991 (prior to implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991), 39 per cent. of those given a fully suspended sentence were reconvicted of a standard list offence within two years. Samples of those sentenced in later years have been drawn but any information on reconviction derived from these samples would be unreliable because of the small numbers of fully suspended sentences in the samples.

  Information on the number of offenders breaching fully suspended sentences is collected and published annually. The most recent published data relate to those breaching fully suspended sentences in 1996 and appear in table 7.25 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1996" (Cm. 3764).

  Information was published regularly on reconviction rates for standard list offences within two years of release for prisoners discharged from partly suspended sentences. However, partly suspended sentences were abolished under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which was implemented on 1 October 1992. The most recent available information appears in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 5/97 "Reconvictions of Prisoners Discharged from Prison in 1993, England and Wales". There were only 27 prisoners released from such sentences in 1993.

  Prison Suicides
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 586, on female deaths in prisons, how many prisoners in each category, in each year, were (a) on remand and (b) convicted. [22122]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The information requested is given in the following table.
  73

  Year

  Female1 prisoners held

  Rx

  Sent

  Female deaths

  Rx

  Sent

  Female S.I.D.S

  Rx

  Sent

  1988

  1,789

  507

  1,282

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1989

  1,767

  468

  1,299

  0

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1990

  1,597

  384

  1,213

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1991

  1,561

  389

  1,172

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1992

  1,577

  383

  1,194

  0

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1993

  1,561

  395

  1,166

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1994

  1,811

  490

  1,321

  0

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1995

  1,979

  491

  1,488

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1996

  2,262

  537

  1,725

  2

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1997

  22,888

  671

  2,217

  1

  —

  1

  3

  0

  3

  1 Average total female population.

  2 Average figure as at 30 November 1997.

  Rx = Remand.

  Sent = Convicted.

  S.I.D.S = Self-inflicted deaths.

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

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those access courses that are designed for entry to specific higher education courses. [22102]

  Dr. Howells
  The Secretary of State publishes a list each year of courses of further education which are approved under Schedule 2(c) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and which are eligible for funding. Such courses are commonly known as access courses. I have placed a copy of the current list in the Library.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students currently in higher education have completed an access or foundation course. [22104]

  Dr. Howells
  The numbers of entrants to higher education with an Access or Foundation course as the highest entry qualification over the last three years were:

  1994: 20,464;

  1995: 22,550;

  1996: 22,950.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total number of students currently enrolled on(a) access and (b) foundation courses; and if he will make a statement. [22101]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, publications by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education suggest that there are around 30,000 students taking part in some 1,200 access courses in England.

  Study and Training Leave
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy 74
  in respect of allowing certain employers exemption from the requirement to permit employees aged 16 or 17 years the right to time off for study or training. [22371]

  Dr. Howells
  The legislation proposed in clauses 23 and 24 of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill will apply to all employers. The Government will continue to work with employers, and other key partners, to build on existing good practice, so that the legislation can be implemented in a way that is both sensible and flexible, and attains its objective of enabling all young people who are able to achieve qualifications at Level 2 (whether National Vocational Qualification or equivalent).

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to exempt employers who offer in-house training for employees aged 16 and 17 years from the requirement to allow such employees time off for study or training; and if he will make a statement. [22369]

  Dr. Howells
  The long-term aim of this Government is that all young people who are able should achieve qualifications at least at Level 2 (whether National Vocational Qualification or equivalent), to equip them for the world of work. The legislation proposed in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill will apply to all employers. No employer will be exempt, but in-house training during the employee's working hours which leads to a relevant qualification, and which meets the requirements of reasonableness that are set out, will enable the employer to meet his obligations under the proposed legislation.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reduce grant in aid to the Equal Opportunities Commission. [22235]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 18 December 1997,Official Report, column 252.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people in Sunderland in receipt of youth training bridging allowance receive jobseeker's allowance. [22051]
  75
  Dr. Howells
  No young person in Sunderland was in receipt of both allowances in the week ending 5 December, the latest period for which data are available.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which TECs have set(a) higher minimum levels of training allowance for non-employed trainees than the minimum permitted and (b) more than the 19.5 days per annum holiday; and if he will make a statement. [22047]

  Dr. Howells
  TECs are free to set allowances above the minimum and to determine holiday entitlements for non-employed trainees in conjunction with training providers. Information of TEC practice in this connection is not held centrally.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the minimum weekly training allowance for youth training. [22046]

  Dr. Howells
  The level of training allowance is under review.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what would be the present minimum weekly training allowance for youth training if it had been uprated in line with inflation since 1990. [22049]

  Dr. Howells
  The present minimum weekly training allowance, which is frequently supplemented by employers, would be £40.69 for 16-year-olds and £47.47 for 17-year-olds and above if it had been uprated in line with inflation since 1990.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers and percentages of young people in Sunderland who are participating in youth training and the percentage who are receiving more than the minimum allowance from employers or training providers. [22050]

  Dr. Howells
  Around 3,000 young people in Sunderland are currently participating in work-based training for young people, representing about 40 per cent. of the 16 to 17-year-old population. Information on those who are receiving more than the minimum allowance in Sunderland is not available. Nationally, around two-thirds of young people in work-based training receive a wage or an allowance topped up above the minimum.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to remove HEFC grant from those universities which fail to collect the student fee element. [22370]

  Dr. Howells
  Given the concern that has been expressed by universities about the reduction in public funding per student since 1989, it would be surprising if many decided that they could forgo tuition fees for a substantial number of students. However, where a university has extensive private income—for instance, from business sponsorship—which it can use to reduce or waive fees without affecting the quality of its provision, then we would not seek to intervene.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the measures in the Green Paper "Excellence for All Children" which strengthen the present legal framework of protection of the rights of children with special needs; and if he will make a statement. [22699]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Green Paper does not propose changes to the fundamental legal framework for Special Educational Needs (SEN). Parents will continue to have the right to seek a statutory assessment and a statement of SEN for their child; their rights would be strengthened through our proposal that an independent adviser should be available to all parents whose children's needs are being formally assessed. We want parents to have greater assurance of effective intervention at the school-based stages of the SEN Code of Practice, with support from local education authorities. This emphasis on early practical support should in time mean that fewer children need to move onto a statement.

  Child Care
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many additional childcare places he expects to become available under the Government's £300 million initiative in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [22367]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is too early to give detailed information of this kind. The £300 million is made up of £30 million from the receipts of the Windfall Tax in 1998–99, £50 million under the Out of School Childcare initiative over five years from 1998–99, £220 million from the New Opportunities Fund over three years from 1999–2003. We expect that most of the funding will be allocated in response to bids and plans which originate at local level. The intention is that there should be a project in every community which needs it, providing places for up to a million children in total.

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy towards after-school clubs for under-eights. [22593]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government are committed to improving the quality and quantity of out of school childcare as part of our development of a national childcare strategy. We have made £300 million available over the next five years which will provide out of school child care to every community in Britain which needs it.

  Circulars
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review each of his Department's circulars issued to education authorities which are still in force; and if he will make a statement. [22260]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department reviews circulars when changes in the law or policy supersede the guidance they contain.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the expenditure by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if she will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15251]

  Mr. Murphy
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information on all travel and associated expenses for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments and Agencies is listed1.2.3..

  £000s

  1990–91

  46,932

  1991–92

  14,555

  1992–93

  47,619

  1993–94

  16,380

  1994–95

  15,301

  1995–96

  16,205

  1996–97

  16,991

  1997–98

  7,105 (1 May to 30 September)

  1 Information on NDPBs could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  2 Information for 1980–81 and 1987–88 is not available.

  3 Northern Ireland Office figures include Personnel Service (Belfast) and NI Prison Service for 1990–91 to 1997–98 and also the Forensic Agency of NI for 1991–92 to 1997–98.

  4 The Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment could not provide information for 1990–91 and 1992–93 without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members her Department employs; what is the total salary and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May. [19314]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Since 1 May

  Prior to 1 May

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Number

  Cost (£)

  (a) Special Advisers

  2

  52,686

  1

  35,746

  (b) Task Force Members1

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Review Body Members1

  1

  2,655 (annually)

  1

  2,655 (annually)

  In addition, two civil servants are currently seconded to work on a Pay and Grading Review in the Northern Ireland Prison Service at a cost of £109,000. In 1996–97, three civil servants were seconded to this work, at a cost of £121,000.

  1 With the exception of the Review in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, it is not possible to distinguish the cost of officials time spent on Task Force and Review Related work.

  Flax Trust, Belfast
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the sources and (b) the amount of funding made available to the Flax Trust, Belfast in the current and previous financial year; and if any of these funds were (i) intended for and (ii) used by the Golden Thread Arts Theatre. [20005]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Department of Health and Social Services provides funding towards the cost of a project run by the Flax Trust through the Community Volunteering Scheme, which is administered on behalf of the Department by the Northern Ireland Volunteer Development Agency. In 1996–97 this amounted to £28,506. The same amount has been set aside for the project in 1997–98, of which £21,380 has been paid to date. The Golden Thread Art Theatre does not receive any funding from the Community Volunteering Scheme.

  T&EA Belfast Region has no direct contractural arrangements with the Flax Trust; however the Trust is an overarching organisation for a number of initiatives in the Ardoyne area, and two of these are directly involved with the Agency.

  (a) Brookfield Business School (BBS) is a Jobskills Training Organisation based in the Brookfield Mill complex. BBS offers training for young people and adults in Catering, Information Technology, Welding and Business Administration. T&EA provided funding of £347,081 in 1996–97 and £240,213 in the current financial year.

  (b) Community Aid is a 117 place ACE project in the Ardoyne area, offering employment in Environmental, Clerical, Computing, Welfare, Home Visitation and Creche work. T&EA provided funding of £712,857 in 1996–97 and £351,445 in the current financial year.

  Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints were made against the police; what is the ratio of the number of complaints to(a) the population of the jurisdiction, (b) the number of police officers and (c) the number investigated; how many of these complaints were investigated; how many investigations led to the instigation of disciplinary proceedings against officers; what is the ratio of proceedings instigated to complaints made; how many disciplinary proceedings led to disciplinary action; and what is the ratio of disciplinary action to complaints made for the last year for which figures are available. [19500]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: The available information for Northern Ireland, in relation to complaints made and completed in 1996 is given below. Number of complaints received: 4,429.

  (a) Ratio of complaints to the population: 1:376.

  (b) Ratio of complaints to number of officers at 30 November 1997 (including Full Time and Part Time Reserve): 1:2.89.

  (c) Ratio of complaints received to the number of complaints fully investigated in 1996 is 1:0.45 (Complaints recorded in a year are not necessarily completed in that year; and the number of complaints investigated includes some originating in earlier years. Also, the figure for investigated complaints does not include complaints withdrawn, informally resolved or deemed incapable of investigation. It is not possible to give a figure for the number of complaints received in 1996 which were investigated in 1996, as the figures on completion can relate to cases originating in earlier years).

  79
  Two thousand and eleven complaints were fully investigated in 1996 and 10 completed investigations led to disciplinary proceedings against officers.

  The ratio of disciplinary proceedings to complaints made against officers is 0.003:1. (The disciplinary proceedings may have arisen from complaints originating in earlier years; some investigations led to more than one officer facing disciplinary action).

  Six officers received disciplinary action following disciplinary hearings arising from investigations completed in 1996. These figures may contain proceedings from complaints made in earlier years. The ratio of disciplinary action to the number of complaints is 0.0014: 1.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Police Authority for Northern Ireland purchased the Seapark complex at Carrickfergus; what the purchase price was; what professional surveys and advice were obtained; and what amounts have since been spent in adapting and developing the complex. [20795]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Authority signed the contract to purchase the Seapark Complex, Carrickfergus, on 4 March 1988.

  The agreed purchase price was £660,000.

  In February 1987 the Authority commissioned a professional architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical condition survey of the Seapark premises.

  Since 1988 the Authority has spent a total of £5.9 million on various projects.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the(a) location, (b) extent and (c) effects of the discovery of asbestos in the Police Authority's Seapark complex, and what estimate she has made of the cost of stores (i) cleaned and (ii) disposed of and the cost of surveys and other remedial work to deal with the asbestos problem. [20797]

  Mr. Ingram
  Asbestos, primarily in the form of asbestos/cement roof and wall panels, is present extensively throughout the former factory and boiler house areas of the Seapark complex.

  Asbestos based material was also present in ceiling tiles and is present in pipe and duct lagging within certain roof voids.

  The discovery of asbestos contamination led to the closure of all contaminated areas and required the relocation of staff, equipment and functions.

  The cost of cleaning re-usable stores items and equipment totals £802,080 and the value of stores disposed of as a direct result of asbestos contaminated amounts to £579,760.

  The cost of surveys and other remedial work to deal with the asbestos problem is £829,243.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was the vendor of the Seapark complex at Carrickfergus when it was purchased by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. [20799]
  80
  Mr. Ingram
  The vendor of the Seapark complex was Rothmans International PLC.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was involved in the decision to identify and evaluate the premises which led to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland purchasing the former Carreras Tobacco plant at Seapark, Carrickfergus. [20796]

  Mr. Ingram
  The availability of the former Rothmans/Carreras factory at Seapark was first identified by senior officials in the Police Authority in December 1986. There then followed a period of evaluation of the premises.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received from the(a) Police Authority and (b) Chief Constable for legislation on the role and responsibilities of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. [20791]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State has received no representations from either the Police Authority or the Chief Constable on the role and responsibilities of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures she will take to ensure that the Police Authority protects the health and safety of all staff at the Seapark complex and fully discloses the extent and implications of the discovery of asbestos in the complex. [20798]

  Mr. Ingram
  Assurances have been received from the Police Authority that it has taken, and will continue to take, whatever measures are necessary to protect the health and safety of all staff at the Seapark complex.

  Following the discovery of asbestos contamination at Seapark, a programme involving re-location, de-contamination and remedial works was implemented.

  Staff and the staff associations were informed about the contamination and, since that time, weekly tests have been carried out for the continuing reassurance of staff.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will encourage the Police Authority and RUC jointly to undertake a comprehensive fair employment audit and action plan and publish it. [20907]

  Mr. Ingram
  Both the Police Authority and the RUC already furnish the Fair Employment Commission with regular reviews of their employment composition and practices in accordance with the obligations placed on employers under Section 31 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989.

  Both bodies take seriously their responsibilities under the legislation and I am not convinced that an audit is required.

  RUC Garnerville (Union Flag)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors determine the length of time the Union flag is flown at RUC Garnerville; and if she will review the practice. [20764]
  81
  Mr. Ingram
  The Union flag has traditionally been flown at the RUC Training Centre on week-days during the hours of 8 am to 5 pm. The flying of the Union flag over police establishments in Northern Ireland is a matter to be dealt with by the Chief Constable.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if DENI's proposal that the premises factor in the LMS formulae should relate solely to the area of the premises will be implemented for 1998–99. [21226]

  Mr. Worthington
  Following extensive consultation with Education and Library Boards and schools, the original proposals for LMS funding have now been amended to ensure that over a period of years we progress towards commonality and transparent fairness of funding of schools in Northern Ireland. This means that in some cases in 1998–99 the determination of the premises factor will not relate solely to the area of premises.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time employees in her Department are paid at an hourly rate of between(a) £3.27 and £3.50, (b) £3.51 and £3.75 and (c) £3.76 and £4. [20613]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Hourly rate

  Employees

  (a) £3.27 to £3.50

  1,500

  (b) £3.51 to £3.75

  329

  (c) £3.76 to £4.00

  390

  Pensions
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she will take to protect pensioners resident in Northern Ireland who receive their pensions from the Republic of Ireland against the impact of currency fluctuations. [21385]

  Mr. Worthington
  None. This is a matter for the Republic of Ireland who determine the rate of pension to be paid.

  Mr. Jackie Mahood
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the RUC investigation into the attempted murder of Mr. Jackie Mahood. [21511]

  Mr. Ingram
  The attempted murder of Mr. Mahood is currently the subject of an investigation by the RUC and is therefore sub judice.

  Farm Improvements
  Mrs. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to continue the SPARD programme for improvements on farms after 1999. [21637]
  82
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Any decision about a future SPARD (Capital Grants) Scheme will be based on an assessment of the needs of the industry and an evaluation of the current scheme which, while closed to new applications is still being administered. Additionally, as a scheme with co-funding from the European Community it will need to address any agreements reached on foot of Agenda 2000.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to ensure that the export ban on Northern Ireland produced beef is removed. [21628]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government have had exhaustive discussions with the European Commission over the last few months on the Export Certified Herd Scheme (ECHS). We have offered changes to meet all the main points of concern.

  We are hopeful that the Commission will put a proposal on ECHS to the Standing Veterinary Committee on 14–15 January.

  The Government are also in discussion with the Commission on the proposals on the Date Based Scheme which was submitted to the Commission in October. We are pursuing this Scheme with just as much urgency as the Certified Herd Scheme.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the factors in addition to the advice of the Life Sentence Review Board which led her to reach her decision on the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright; and if she will make a statement. [20981]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The two Guardsmen were each provided with a written gist of my considerations of their cases at the time that my decision was conveyed to them by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. A copy of the relevant extract from the letter is reproduced as follows.
  "Gist of the Secretary of State's considerations
  The Secretary of State carefully considered all the currently available information and reports about your case in the knowledge of the confidential recommendation of the Review Board. She also considered at length all the available information about the other cases identified. However, the Secretary of State concluded that while it was useful to recall the other cases and to be aware of their outcomes, and the reasons for them, in so far as they are known, they lent little assistance to the deliberations given the full facts of your particular case. The Secretary of State also felt that the information relating to Manslaughter cases and other serious crimes other than murder covered such a wide range that they were also not particularly helpful or relevant.
  The Secretary of State also considered the formal representations from your Solicitor along with the other correspondence received about your case.
  Looking therefore at your case on its own individual merits the Secretary of State weighed up the various competing mitigating and aggravating factors. The Secretary of State noted that there was no agreement as to who fired first. She concluded that this factor, which could be variously viewed as mitigating or aggravating, was of minor significance. She concluded that a gravely serious crime had been committed which resulted in the death of an unarmed youth who was running away from your patrol in circumstances where the

  83
  Courts found that there was no lawful justification for the shooting. She also acknowledged, however, the difficult background against which the offence had been committed in which you were operating during the course of your duty and the fact that there was no premeditation. She decided that, given all the available facts of your case, you have not yet served a period sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the crime. She therefore decided to invite the Life Sentence Review Board to consider your case again in one year's time when you will have served approximately six years.
  I must of course, advise you, without prejudice to whatever recommendation that the Review Board may come to next year, that a deferral of your case for this period is not an indication that release will be appropriate at that time."

  I would assure the House that the consideration that has been given to these cases by all those who are involved in the life sentence review process has been scrupulous. These are very serious matters and the cases have been carefully and thoroughly considered on the basis of the facts as adduced by the Courts. They have been dealt with strictly on their own merits and I can assure the House that no extraneous considerations, political or otherwise, have been permitted to influence my decision.

  Prisoners (Head Counts)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the dates and times of the last five full head counts of prisoners in each prison in Northern Ireland indicating for each such count whether the prisoners were locked in their cells at the time or outside their cells. [22175]

  Mr. Ingram
  With the exception of HMP Maze, head counts are carried out at frequent and regular intervals both in and out of cell. There are a minimum of five head counts in any period of 24 hours and these are detailed for the last 24 hours. At HMP Maze however, two head counts are carried out per day and prisoners are locked in the block but not in the cells.Head counts—HMP Magilligan

  08.00: Prisoners locked in cell

  12.30: (lunchtime) Prisoners locked in cell

  16.30: (return from work) Prisoners locked in cell

  17.30: (teatime) Prisoners locked in cell

  20.30: Prisoners locked in cell

  Prisoners are checked approximately every two hours during the night in cell.
  Head counts—HM Young Offenders Centre

  08.00: (two checks) nightguard and day staff—Prisoners locked in cell

  09.30: (before work) Prisoners not locked

  12.45: (lunchtime) Prisoners locked in cell

  13.30: (unlock) Prisoners locked in cell

  16.00: (lock up) Prisoners locked in cell

  16.45: (unlock) Prisoners locked in cell

  20.00: (lock up) day staff—Prisoners locked in cell

  21.30: (nightguard) Prisoners locked in cell

  Head counts continue during the night at irregular intervals.
  Head counts—HMP Maghaberry

  08.00: (unlock) Prisoners locked in cell

  12.30: (lunch) Some prisoners are locked in cell and some are in the exercise yards or out with work parties

  14.00: (unlock) Same as 12.30 above

  16.30: (lock up) Prisoners locked in cell

  17.30: (unlock) Prisoners locked in cell

  84

  20.30: (lock up) Prisoners locked in cell

  In addition, regular cell checks are carried out by the nightguard every hour.
  Head counts—HMP Maze

  08.30: approximately

  19.30: approximately

  Prisoners are locked in the blocks but not in their cells.

  HM YOC is not a prison under the terms of the Act, but as the establishment is the responsibility of the NIPS it has been included in the answer.

  Preparatory Schools
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the proposals to cut funding for preparatory schools in Northern Ireland were subjected to a policy appraisal and fair treatment analysis; and what were the results. [22256]

  Mr. Worthington
  A Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment analysis is currently being carried out concurrent with the analysis of all the comments received during the consultation process. This analysis will be an integral part of the final decision making process.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of the proposed reductions in funding for preparatory schools in Northern Ireland upon the viability of such schools; and what were the findings of this research. [22257]

  Mr. Worthington
  As part of the consultative process, each school with a preparatory department was asked to provide an assessment of the impact the proposed funding changes would have on the existing and future pupil numbers and the ongoing viability of the school. Responses are currently under consideration.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the classes or groups of employers for which the Fair Employment Commission does not require that information about the religious and community background of its work force be published below the level of the organisation as a whole; and what are the criteria which an employer has to meet to receive such status. [22219]

  Mr. Ingram
  The FEC does not publish information on the religious composition of any employers' workforce below the level of the workforce as a whole.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the organisations for which the Fair Employment Commission only requires information on the religious and community background of the workforce as a whole. [22220]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are none. All registered employers must submit to the Commission annual monitoring returns showing the community composition of their overall workforce and the composition in nine standard occupational classifications.

  Prison Escape
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports she has received on the time and method of the escape of Liam Averill from prison, other then the information given to the prison authorities by the person claiming to be the spokesman for the IRA in the prison. [22203]

  Mr. Ingram
  Shortly after the escape, I received reports from the Governor of HMP Maze and from the Chief Executive of the NI Prison Service. I then initiated a full inquiry, the result of which will be published in due course.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the RUC stations which she has visited since she took up her present Ministerial responsibilities. [22177]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the following RUC stations since taking up her present Ministerial responsibilities:

  Lurgan

  Strand Road

  Newtownabbey

  Dungannon

  Musgrave Street

  Ballymoney

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place in the Library a copy of the survey recommended by Her Majesty's Inspector for Constabulary on religious harassment within the RUC. [20793]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the survey recommended by Her Majesty's Inspector for Constabulary on religious harassment within the RUC.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 15 July 1997,Official Report, column 145, whether the army is participating in the review of baton gun guidelines which the Association of Chief Police Officers is conducting. [22481]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army is not participating in the review being conducted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, but will consider any recommendations from that review with regard to its own guidelines on the use of baton guns.

  Police Authority
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill to require the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to hold its meetings in public and publish minutes for public inspection. [21050]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State has no immediate plans to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill so that the Police Authority is required to hold its meetings in public and publish minutes for public inspection.
  86
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Police Authority for Northern Ireland is taking to prepare and plan for its meetings to be held in public. [21049]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Authority's Code of Openness and Accountability, published on 8 April 1997, sets out its policy on public access to meetings and minutes. The Code commits the Authority to holding a well-publicised annual meeting open to the public. In December 1997, two such meetings were held in Belfast and Londonderry. The minutes of the Authority's monthly meeting with the Chief Constable are made available for public inspection and copies are issued to the media.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many secure cycle spaces there are in her Department. [22683]

  Clare Short
  There are secure spaces for 28 bicycles at the Department's London office and 10 at the office in East Kilbride. Additional spaces could be made available in both locations if there were increased demand.

  Aid (Rules for Use)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what factors influenced the Government's decision to offer developing countries greater flexibility in the use of aid; and what measures she proposes to prevent aid being used for military purchases. [22469]

  Clare Short
  Our new emphasis on poverty elimination highlights the importance of entering deeper and long-term partnerships with those poorer countries who share our commitment to the international development targets through the adoption of sensible economic, social and political policies. A key feature of the UK's relationships with our developing country partners is to ensure that the latter play a full part in the planning, implementation and evaluation of development projects in their countries.

  There is not and will not be any link between aid and sales of British arms equipment.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what terms Her Majesty's Government require to be met before signing up to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and what safeguards Her Majesty's Government will require for developing countries. [22431]

  Clare Short
  The Government will be seeking a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) with a satisfactory balance of commitments from each negotiating partner. The MAI is not designed for poorer developing countries but it could become a model, and we are supporting consultation with them on how their needs can be taken into account. My Department is commissioning a study to look at any implications the MAI may have for these countries.

  Denver Summit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the extra spending obligations arising from the Prime Minister's policy announced at the Denver Summit in relation to overseas aid; and from what budget extra resources will come. [22470]

  Clare Short
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an increase by 50 per cent. of our bilateral commitments for basic education, health care and clean water in the sub-Saharan Africa. This means my Department will commit at least £360 million over the next three years in these areas compared with £240 million in the previous three. Funds will come from existing resources and will be found by giving higher priority to programmes to combat poverty.

  Bilateral Aid (Africa)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much bilateral aid has been given for(a) health care, (b) education and (c) clean water in Africa in each of the last three years; and what is the estimated level for the next three years. [22468]

  Clare Short
  Over the last three years we have committed £240 million bilateral aid to health care, education and clean water in Africa and of this we have so far actually spent the following amounts:

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Health care

  19.0

  35.8

  32.6

  Education

  2.9

  21.2

  6.7

  Water and sanitation

  7.2

  8.2

  12.5

  At the G7/8 Denver Summit in June last year my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, announced that we would increase by 50 per cent. our commitments on basic education, health care and clean water over the next three years. We intend, therefore, to commit at least £360 million over the next three years to meet these targets.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from independent butchers about deboning costs. [21376]

  Mr. Rooker
  A number of organisations consulted about the legislative proposals to require the deboning of all beef, whether from home supplies or imported, coming from cattle over six months old, before it is sold to the consumer, drew attention to the cost of deboning in their responses. Copies of all the responses received and considered before the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 were made have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that beef labelled as produced in Britain is not merely processed in the United Kingdom. [22441]
  88
  Mr. Rooker
  The Beef Labelling Scheme, which takes full effect from 31 March 1998 will require retailers and others selling beef to consumers which is labelled "British" to seek prior approval from a competent authority for use of the term. To obtain approval, such operators will have to demonstrate that beef labelled "British" is derived from animals born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library details of the representations he has received from(a) representative bodies and (b) others on his proposals to ban beef on the bone. [22286]

  Mr. John Cunningham
  Copies of all the responses received and considered following the formal consultation on legislative proposals to require the deboning of all beef, whether from home supplies or imported, coming from cattle over six months old, before it is sold to the consumer, were placed in the Library of the House on 22 December 1997.

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the advice that he received from Sir Kenneth Calman regarding the health risks posed by beef on the bone. [22494]

  Mr. Rooker
  A statement by Sir Kenneth Calman in which he outlined his advice to Ministers was published in a press release by the Department of Health on 5 December 1997. As is usual practice, a copy was placed in the Library of the House at the same time.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he considered to ensure that all beef on the bone products are clearly identified and sold with suitable warnings of the risk of CJD infection; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of such measures as an alternative to the ban on the sale of beef on the bone products. [20505]

  Mr. Rooker
  We carefully considered the advice which was received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on the safety of bone-in beef, including making their assessment public and leaving it for consumers to decide whether or not to continue purchasing such products. Taking account of the views of the Chief Medical Officer, we concluded that further action was necessary on a precautionary basis, and, following consultation with interested organisations, have introduced a prohibition on the sale of bone-in beef products in the Beef Bones Regulations 1997.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken in other EU countries to regulate the sale of bone-in beef. [21040]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The precautionary action taken in the United Kingdom to prohibit the sale of bone-in beef in the interest of consumer safety, together with the full advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, was notified to the European Commission immediately. It was subsequently considered by the Scientific Steering Committee in Brussels who are continuing to review the scientific evidence in the light of their initial assessment. In the meantime, any action in individual Member States is a matter for their authorities. We understand, however, that Belgium is considering a ban on bone-in beef from

  89
  early in 1998, and the Irish Republic has given a strong warning about the risks of eating bone-in beef to its citizens but taken no further action.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of the ban on bone-in beef upon catering establishments specialising in such products. [21201]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: Comments received by the deadline from those consulted, including the catering industry, on the proposed legislation to implement a ban on bone-in beef, were all carefully considered before the Beef Bone Regulations 1997 were made and presented to Parliament. The accompanying Regulatory Appraisal sets out our best assessment of the impact of this legislation on those sectors directly affected, based on the information available to us at the time. A copy is available in the Library of the House, and on the MAFF Internet site.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was first notified of SEAC's recommendations on beef on-the-bone. [21608]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: My right hon. Friend received SEAC's recommendations on bone-in beef just before 9.00 am on Wednesday 3 December 1997.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that imported beef supplied to schools meets the(a) meat safety and (b) animal welfare standards required of United Kingdom producers. [21603]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The sourcing of food supplied to schools is a matter for the appropriate education authorities and governing bodies. Health provisions concerning the beef available on the British market are set at the EU level, and animal welfare provisions in both EU and Council of Europe measures. From the 1 January 1998, all beef entering the UK food chain is required to meet the UK SRM (specified risk material) controls.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages of exempting beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996 from the ban on beef on-the-bone; and if he will make a statement. [21598]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Consideration was given to such an exemption. However, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his statement to the House on 3 December 1997, Official Report, columns 372–89, this would give rise to considerable problems of identification and enforcement. We therefore concluded that, to avoid any possibility of errors, mix ups, cheating or confusion, we should follow SEAC advice that all beef from cattle over six months old should be deboned. The position will be kept under review.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide additional money to councils to fund environmental health officers' inspection of butchers' shops, following the ban of beef-on-the-bone. [21675]
  90
  Mr. Rooker
  There will be no increase in the level of supervision as a result of the prohibition on the sale of bone-in beef contained in the Beef Bones Regulations 1997. Normal levels will continue to apply, although enforcement officers will, in future, be required to check that boning requirements are being met. I therefore see no need to make additional money available to local authorities for this work.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current cost to the United Kingdom of its contribution to the Common Agricultural Policy. [21390]

  Mr. Rooker
  The United Kingdom is expected to contribute about £4.3 billion towards Community expenditure on the CAP in 1997, some of which will be abated next year under the Fontainebleau arrangements.

  School Milk
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Union funding is available for the provision of school milk in schools within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [21889]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under the fully EU-funded scheme, the UK subsidises drinking milk and unflavoured yoghurt provided to primary schools and nurseries. The rate of subsidy is as follows:

  Pence per pint

  Whole milk

  11.99

  Semi-skimmed milk

  7.57

  Plain whole milk yoghurt

  2.05

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements with the Government of Argentina govern the importing of beef from that country; and if he will make a statement. [22191]

  Mr. Rooker
  Imports of beef from Argentina must be in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Consignments of beef must also be accompanied by public health certification which conforms to the model laid down in Commission Decision 87/221/EEC. Argentina also benefits from certain concessionary tariff arrangements.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government will take to ensure that the labelling of beef and other meat products identifies the country of origin. [22357]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 492.

  Meat Labelling
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations his Department has held with supermarkets to ensure that beef and other meat products are properly labelled. [22358]
  91
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's officials have regular discussions with retailers about food law, including the accuracy of labelling information. Officials have held specific discussions with representatives of the major supermarkets and independent butchers about the forthcoming arrangements for the labelling of fresh and frozen beef and beef mince.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that meat is labelled with the country of production. [22076]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The Government have already announced plans for the labelling of fresh and frozen beef and beef mince. Under the proposed arrangements, which will enter into full force on 31 March 1998, origin claims along with other detailed information, such as production method, will require approval by a competent authority. While these arrangements will be voluntary in the first instance, I expect the majority of beef sold retail to be covered. It is envisaged that origin claims on beef will be compulsory by the year 2000. The European Commission will be reviewing the operation of the beef labelling arrangements in 1999. As part of the review the Commission is expected to consider the possibility of extending the beef labelling arrangements to other species.

  Rendering Subsidy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reintroduce the rendering subsidy. [22356]

  Mr. Rooker
  The objective of the support to the rendering industry was to avoid the disorderly collapse of the meat chain in the immediate aftermath of the BSE crisis. This was achieved. A wide range of industry bodies and representatives were involved in drawing up the Schemes, which were always intended to cover only the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98, and to provide reduced support in the second year to allow the meat chain to adjust to the post BSE economic and regulatory realities.

  Following the election, the Government carefully considered representations made by a wide range of interested industry bodies, from producers to renderers, before confirming the phasing out of support, which began in July. The principal reason for the decision was that the conditions last year which gave rise to the threat of collapse of the meat chain no longer exist. The support has served its purpose and there are no plans to continue the support into 1998–99.

  Cattle Traceability Scheme
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the use of(a) information technology and (b) electronic ear tags for cattle in the Cattle Traceability Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [22078]

  Mr. Rooker
  The British Cattle Movement Service, which is being set up to oversee the Cattle Tracing System (CTS), will operate a highly automated system. It will make use of barcode technology to process machine readable forms. Industry are also being encouraged to notify cattle movements to the BCMS by electronic mail.
  92
  It will not be a requirement of the CTS for cattle to have electronic eartags. However, the CTS will take account of the fact that increasing numbers of cattle are likely to have them in the future, which the Government view as a welcome development.

  Food Agency
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to include farmers in consultations regarding the new Food Agency. [22446]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will be seeking the views of all interested parties when the White Paper on the Food Standards Agency is published and circulated for consultation later this week. We will also be meeting key stakeholders, including farmers' representatives, over the coming weeks to discuss specific issues.

  BSE Crisis
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to instigate a public inquiry into the BSE crisis; and if he will make a statement. [22443]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend and the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 497–98.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage the applications for EU compensation for(a) beef farmers, (b) dairy farmers and (c) sheep farmers affected by the BSE crisis have reached. [22444]

  Mr. Rooker
  No measures are currently in place at the EU level which provide for the payment of compensation to farmers for the effect of BSE on market prices. On 22 December 1997 my right hon. Friend announced a package of measures to assist beef and sheep farmers. This consists of two elements:£60 million to be paid as agrimonetary compensation to suckler cow producers on the basis of their 1996 premium claims;
  £25 million to be paid in increased Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances, split equally between cattle and sheep.

  Both elements of this package require the approval of the European Commission before they can be put into effect. To this end, discussions with the Commission are in progress.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his timetable in respect of implementing regulations for the sale of vitamin B6; and if he will make a statement. [22432]

  Mr. Rooker
  The regulations required to implement the proposed controls on dietary supplements containing vitamin B6 are in the process of being drafted and we hope that it will be possible to issue them for consultation in early February. The European Commission will be notified of the draft regulations at the same time. The timing of the laying of the regulations before Parliament will depend on the outcome of the consultation exercise and the Commission's reaction to the proposals. The earliest date that they could be laid would be during May.
  93
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct the expert group recently constituted to assess the safety limits of vitamins and minerals to make examination of vitamin B6 a priority. [22571]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have already received advice from independent expert Committees on the safety of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements, following the very thorough review of this issue which was carried out last year. There are, therefore, no plans to ask the new expert group to undertake a further review of the data on the safety of vitamin B6.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) date of appointment, (b) terms of reference and (c) membership of the focus groups established by his Department to discuss genetically modified food. [22604]

  Mr. Rooker
  Although the Department has not set up any formal focus groups to discuss genetically modified food, it has commissioned a number of research projects to investigate consumer opinion on this subject which include ad-hoc groups of this type. Consumer views are also obtained from projects conducted by others, such as the large study published by Lancaster University last year, as well as from a wide variety of other sources such as the MAFF Consumer Panel and the National Biotechnology Conference, held in March 1997, at which a number of consumer groups were represented.

  In addition to these various methods for assessing public opinion, note is also taken of consumer purchasing patterns of products such as the genetically modified tomato paste which has been on sale since February 1996.

  Tallow
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken in the last three months to assist the trade in tallow; and if he will make a statement. [21956]

  Mr. Rooker
  Commission Decision 96/239 (as amended) set out conditions which must be met in order for the resumption of tallow exports. These requirements were implemented in the UK in March 1997, and the first plants meeting these conditions were registered in August. During the last three months, the registered plants have continued to be inspected weekly to ensure that the conditions set out in the legislation continue to be observed. A list of the plants was sent to the Commission on 23 October 1997 with a formal request that they undertake the inspections required by the Decision. We are currently awaiting a response.

  Following the inspections, the Commission will put the matter to the EC's Standing Veterinary Committee who must then set a date for the resumption of tallow exports. However, the Standing Veterinary Committee has discussed a proposal to revoke and replace Commission Decision 96/239. These discussions may delay their consideration of a proposal to allow the resumption of exports of tallow from the UK.

  Rescheduled Cattle Scheme
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy towards the rescheduled cattle scheme. [22445]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am not aware of any rescheduled cattle scheme.

  Novel Foods and Processes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposals in the White Paper on Freedom of Information on the modus operandi of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. [22631]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes already operates in accordance with many of the proposals contained in the white paper. For instance, it has for some time published agendas for its meetings and notes of its discussions as well as detailed reports of its safety assessment of individual novel food applications. More recently, it has been considering what action it might take to increase the openness of its operations still further and an announcement of this conclusions will be made shortly.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking with regard to the evidence presented to his Department on 3 November 1997 regarding the conditions of animals at a mink farm in Hampshire. [22519]

  Mr. Morley
  The information supplied on 3 November 1997 has been followed up as a matter of urgency. Our investigations are continuing.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received over(a) escaped mink and (b) animal welfare in relation to the mink farm licensed in Hampshire. [22521]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received two letters making representations about escaped mink in relation to the mink farm licensed in Hampshire and 11 concerning animal welfare at the same premises.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at how many mink farms the killing of mink was witnessed by his officials over the last three months; and what methods were used in the killing. [22520]

  Mr. Morley
  Veterinary Officers of the State Veterinary Service have witnessed the killing of mink on 15 of the 16 mink farms currently licensed in the last three months. Ten farms used carbon monoxide gas, four used carbon dioxide gas and one, barbiturate injection. The sixteenth farm had no stock to kill during this period.

  Poultry Meat
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom poultry meat industry of the ban on the use of mammalian meat and bone meal in poultry rations in the United Kingdom. [20572]
  95
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: The ban on feeding mammalian meat and bone meal to all farmed livestock was introduced in 1996 by the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Amendment) Order 1996. An assessment was made, prior to the legislation being introduced, on how, in economic terms, the ban would affect the agriculture industry. It was estimated that the costs of feed for the egg laying flock would increase by about £3 per tonne and by around £4–£5 per tonne for broilers.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will take to prohibit beef imports in cases of suspect documentation. [21582]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: If there are suspicions regarding the authenticity of documentation, these would be investigated. Council Directive 90/675/EEC provides for imports of animal products from third countries which do not satisfy Community rules to be re-dispatched outside the Community, destroyed or used for a purpose, other than for human consumption, for which they are considered fit. In accordance with Council Directive 89/662/EEC, imports of animal products from other Member States which do not satisfy the conditions laid down in Community law may be destroyed, used for other purposes for which they are considered fit, or returned. Return of products must be authorised by the competent authority of the country of the establishment of origin.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that imported beef conforms to the criteria for United Kingdom domestic slaughter. [21581]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: All fresh meat produced in the UK, and imported into the UK from other EU Member States, must be produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Fresh meat imported from third countries must come only from approved establishments in countries which are authorised by the European Commission to export to the Community. These controls are designed to ensure that the meat satisfies health requirements equivalent to those applying within the Community.

  In addition, national legislation, which came into force on 1 January 1998, prohibits imports of specified risk materials (SRM) of bovine, ovine or caprine origin (except for technical uses) from all other countries, including other EU Member States, and requires a number of imported animal products to be accompanied by official veterinary certification confirming that they do not contain and are not derived from SRM. National controls on the use of certain specified risk materials, which have been amended a number of times in the light of scientific advice, have been in place since 1989.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mechanisms are used to ensure that beef imported into the UK from European countries is from animals which were less than 30 months old. [22077]
  96
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 prohibit the sale for human consumption of all meat derived from bovine animals which at the time of slaughter were more than 30 months old. This measure applies to all bovines slaughtered on or after 29 March 1996, whether in the UK or overseas, other than those born, reared and slaughtered in those third countries specifically excluded by the Regulations and UK animals from the Beef Assurance Scheme. Local authorities enforce the Regulations acting on any information available to them. The Regulations do not impose restrictions on the import of meat.

  Bovine Bones
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1997,Official Report, column 232, what method will be used by local authority staff to determine the age of bovine bones in butchers' shops and catering establishments. [22140]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: If a local authority enforcement officer considers that bone-in beef sold to the ultimate consumer has come from animals over six months old at slaughter, (the age limit contained in the Beef Bones Regulations 1997) the onus will be on the seller to demonstrate the true age of the animal concerned.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the licensing of genetically modified crops for commercial planting. [21798]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The licensing of genetically modified crops for commercial planting involves two distinct clearance processes. First, the release and marketing of all GMOs is strictly controlled by regulations made under Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which implements Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. No release or marketing of genetically modified crops may take place without the prior consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment. This consent is issued by the Secretary of State if the release is in England, or the Secretary of State for Scotland or Wales as appropriate and my right hon. Friend acts jointly with the Secretary of State in matters in which he has an interest. No consent can be issued without the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive. Applications to market genetically modified crops are scrutinised by all EC Member States and a final decision is made by qualified majority vote under Article 21 of Directive 90/220/EEC. In the UK, the independent expert members of the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment (ACRE) consider applications to release and market GMOs on the basis of a detailed environmental risk assessment and they advise Ministers on whether or not a consent should be granted and what conditions should apply. Matters of food safety are addressed by the Advisory Committee on Novel Food Processes in accordance with the EC Regulation on Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients.
  97
  Secondly, no seed of agricultural varieties can be marketed in the UK unless they appear on the UK National List or EC Common Catalogue of varieties. These systems—which usually involve two years or more of growing trials—ensure that new varieties are distinct from others already in the market place and that they have a value for cultivation and use in the UK. However, successful trialling under the National List system is not sufficient on its own to permit the marketing of a genetically modified plant variety.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Administrative Staff
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff were employed as management and administrative staff in each of the NHS trusts and boards in Scotland on 1 November; what percentage of the total staff of the NHS trusts and boards in Scotland this represents; and what was the figure and percentage on(a) 1 May 1997; (b) 1 November 1996 and (c) 1 May 1996. [20059]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: The information available is shown in the table.

  NHSiS workforce: Management and administrative and clerical staff headcount: at 30 September 1996 1 by NHS Trust and Health Board

  Headcount

  Management and administrative staff2,3

  Management and administrative staff as percentage of all staff4

  Boards

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  195

  92.0

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  91

  89.2

  Borders Health Board

  65

  90.3

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  74

  89.2

  Fife Health Board

  128

  79.0

  Forth Valley Health Board

  139

  87.4

  Grampian Health Board

  297

  85.8

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  444

  89.9

  Highland Health Board

  154

  83.7

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  189

  88.7

  Lothian Health Board

  329

  71.2

  Orkney Health Board5

  52

  10.5

  Shetland Health Board

  15

  75.0

  Tayside Health Board

  230

  80.1

  Western Isles Health Board

  32

  91.4

  NHS Trusts

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  777

  15.0

  Angus NHS Trust

  216

  10.9

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  161

  11.6

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  407

  15.2

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  138

  11.7

  Borders General Hospitals NHS Trust

  208

  16.0

  Caithness and Sunderland NHS Trust

  87

  12.4

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  328

  9.9

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  266

  14.6

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  256

  12.2

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  294

  12.0

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  793

  17.4

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  284

  10.9

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  668

  16.2

  98

  NHSiS workforce: Management and administrative and clerical staff headcount: at 30 September 1996 1 by NHS Trust and Health Board

  Headcount

  Management and administrative staff2,3

  Management and administrative staff as percentage of all staff4

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  241

  21.0

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  250

  16.1

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  423

  12.8

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  77

  17.3

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  722

  16.9

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  717

  13.3

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  794

  13.7

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  314

  17.5

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  256

  11.4

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  275

  17.1

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  340

  20.2

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  433

  10.2

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  369

  18.6

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  203

  13.9

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  331

  16.3

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  211

  14.7

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  369

  11.3

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  312

  12.0

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  250

  18.1

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  356

  16.5

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  428

  12.5

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  305

  17.7

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  940

  18.2

  Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  403

  13.9

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit5

  68

  17.7

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  294

  15.5

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  441

  13.4

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  226

  13.3

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  385

  17.6

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  387

  15.1

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  781

  15.9

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  429

  14.1

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  478

  16.0

  Western Isles Health Unit5

  80

  10.3

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  350

  14.6

  1 Information for September 1997 will be available by February 1998.

  2The figures include some, but not all, senior managers of professional staff, for example nurses. Some managers of these professional groups remain employed under the terms and conditions of these professions and are not included.

  3 Comprises staff on senior management, administrative and clerical (A&C) and protected grades, ambulance officers and control assistants.

  4 The denominator comprises staff directly employed by Trusts and Health Boards and therefore excludes general practitioners and their staff.

  5 Includes the island DMUs. The DMU and Board cannot be separated for Orkney.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll—ISD Scotland

  Nurses
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses were employed by each of the NHS trusts in Scotland on(a) 1 November, (b) 1 May,
  (c) 1 November 1996 and (d) 1 May 1996. [20056]

  Mr. Gailbraith
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: The information available is shown in the table.

  NHSiS workforce: Nurses employed by NHS trusts Headcount: at 30 September 19961,4

  Headcount2,3

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,679

  Angus NHS Trust

  732

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  523

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  869

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  439

  Borders General Hospitals NHS Trust

  436

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  274

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS trust

  1,098

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  654

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  709

  State Hospital

  217

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  953

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,482

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  869

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,392

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  348

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  469

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,263

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  10

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  1,458

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,942

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  2,250

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trusts

  656

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  836

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  440

  Kircaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  661

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,600

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  657

  Lomond Healthcare Trust

  480

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  793

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  535

  North Ayshire and Arran NHS Trust

  1,000

  Orkney Health Board4

  196

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  976

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  605

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  709

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,005

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  629

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  1,784

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit4

  180

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  552

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,042

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  524

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  580

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  774

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  1,222

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  926

  100

  NHSiS workforce: Nurses employed by NHS trusts Headcount: at 30 September 19961,4

  Headcount2,3

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  789

  Western Isles Health Unit4

  306

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  786

  1 Information for September 1997 will be available by February 1998.

  2 The figures include some but not all senior nurses. Some are employed on senior manager grades and are not included here.

  3 Excludes nurse teachers, nurses in training and students on 1992 courses in nursing and miswifery.

  4 Includes, State Hospital and Island Units.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll, ISD Scotland.

  Falkirk College (Grants)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education in order to discuss with student representatives the need to expedite payment of student grants. [20485]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I have any plans to do so at present, but substantial progress is being made in dealing with the outstanding grant applications from students at Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students at Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education have not received payment of their grants for the current session; and what is the reason for the continuing delay. [20484]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: As at 15 December 1997, some 1,120 grant applications from students attending Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education had been processed and a further 237 remained to the be dealt with. The vast majority of the outstanding applications were submitted from October onwards, well after the academic year at the College had begun.

  Initial problems with a new computer system at the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, together with the concentrated volume of applications received around the start of the new academic year, were the main causes of the delays. Substantial progress has now been made towards reducing the delays.

  Health Service Vacancies
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacant NHS posts there are currently in Scotland, by health board area, for(a) hospital doctors, (b) general practitioners and (c) nurses; and what these numbers were at the same time in 1996. [21161]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The information is shown in the table.
  101

  Vacant posts for selected staff groups

  Headcount: by health board area

  1996

  1997

  Hospital medical staff1

  General medical practitioners2

  Nurses3,4

  Hospital medical staff1

  General medical practitioners2

  Nurses3,4

  Scotland

  220

  35

  6—

  161

  26

  1,217

  Argyll and Clyde

  28

  5

  6—

  19

  2

  128

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10

  4

  6—

  15

  4

  31

  Borders

  6

  1

  6—

  2

  1

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6

  2

  6—

  7

  —

  19

  Fife

  9

  —

  6—

  6

  —

  20

  Forth Valley

  16

  1

  6—

  5

  1

  134

  Grampian

  30

  3

  6—

  21

  3

  103

  Greater Glasgow

  31

  6

  6—

  15

  6

  316

  Highland

  13

  1

  6—

  6

  4

  34

  Lanarkshire

  37

  3

  6—

  36

  —

  58

  Lothian

  24

  4

  6—

  14

  3

  281

  Orkney

  —

  2

  6—

  —

  —

  1

  Shetland

  1

  —

  6—

  4

  —

  7

  Tayside

  6

  3

  6—

  7

  1

  75

  Western Isles

  3

  —

  6—

  2

  1

  5

  Common Services Agency

  —

  n/a

  6—

  2

  n/a

  1

  State Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  6—

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  1 As at 30 September. Comprises Consultant and Staff grades only.

  2 Unrestricted principals as at 1 October.

  3 Comprises qualified nurses only. Data are whole time equivalent at 31 March.

  4 Excludes some Trusts where ISD(M)36 forms were not returned.

  5 Provisional data. For hospital medical staff, excludes data for 3 Trusts where ISD(M)4 forms are still outstanding.

  6 not readily available.

  n/a= not applicable.

  Source:

  ISD(M)4.

  ISD(M)36.

  General Medical Practitioner Database.

  ISD Scotland.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected shortfall for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) hospital doctors, (ii) general practitioners and (iii) nurses. [21358]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The information requested is not collected centrally although vacancies are monitored on an annual basis. We are aware of recruitment difficulties in certain specialties and in particular localities.

  Private Finance Initiative (NHS)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate, by scheme, the subsidies paid by his Department under the smoothing mechanism to the three major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May. [21407]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The smoothing mechanism is not a feature of PFI in health schemes in Scotland, hence no subsidies will be paid to the NHS Trusts involved in the major PFI schemes. To succeed under PFI, schemes must prove themselves to be affordable to the healthcare planners.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate for each of the major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May, the 102
  financial and percentage change in the purchasers" annual revenue commitment to PFI hospital schemes between outline and full business case. [21410]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Health Boards as strategic planners of healthcare do not make annual revenue commitments to schemes at either the outline or full business case stage.

  As part of the business planning process for both publicly and privately funded schemes, Health Boards are required to confirm that the proposals are affordable within the wider context of healthcare provision. It is the responsibility of NHS Trusts to ensure that the revenue commitments implied by a scheme can be met from the resources available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May, how much each relevant health trust paid for each of the last three years in annual capital charges to the Treasury. [21408]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: NHS Trusts do not pay capital charges to HM Treasury. However, they do repay interest on their interest bearing debt and may be required to pay a dividend on their Public Dividend Capital. The total sums for interest and

  103
  dividends remitted to HM Treasury in 1994–95 to 1996–97 by the three NHS Trusts with acute PFI schemes was as follows:

  £000

  NHS Trust

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  6,010

  6,324

  6,167

  Law Hospital

  1,341

  1,478

  1,657

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  1,996

  2,687

  2,441

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May, how much each lead consortium involved will receive per year for the use of the new hospitals upon completion. [21412]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Since none of the deals for the major acute PFI schemes has reached financial close, details of the unitary charge payable to the private sector is still being negotiated.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the three major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May(a) the cost of renovating the existing facilities and (b) the current estimated cost of the scheme. [21406]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: As part of the capital investment process, NHS Trusts prepare outline business cases examining all the investment options and through an economic appraisal identify the preferred option. The preferred option is the one which, taking account of costs and benefits and the transfer of risk, delivers the best value for money. The renovation of existing facilities was not the preferred option in any of the major acute PH schemes.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of staffed acute beds in use for each of the last 10 years. [21403]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The number of average available staffed acute beds for each of the last 10 years is given in the following table.

  Average available staffed beds in acute specialties1

  Years ending 31 March

  Average available staffed beds

  1988

  19,597

  1989

  19,193

  1990

  18,798

  1991

  18,317

  1992

  17,580

  1993

  17,414

  1994

  16,873

  1995

  16,360

  1996

  15,963

  1997

  15,503

  1 Excludes beds in the specialities of geriatric assessment, maternity, psychiatric, learning disability and long stay.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate(a) the number in 1996 of, (b) the number projected upon completion for and (c) the
  104
  percentage change in staffed acute beds at NHS trusts subject to PFI developments prioritised by his Department since May. [21409]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: For each Trust with a major acute PFI project, the number of acute beds in 1996; in the public sector comparator; and projected to be in the PFI facility are as follows:

  NHS Trust

  Number of acute beds in 1996

  Number of acute beds in PSC

  Projected number of acute beds acute beds in PFI facility

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  1,099

  986

  869

  Law Hospital

  404

  336

  336

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hosoitals

  495

  354

  364

  Crown Office
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for the Crown Office. [22034]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Crown Office is an independent Government Department under the direction of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. As such, its funding is provided by Parliament through a separate vote and is not part of the Scottish Block.

  The Government have initiated the Comprehensive Spending Review and, in common with the other Departments, the Crown Office is committed to ensuring that forward provision is sufficient to meet the needs of prosecution and law and order in Scotland.

  Judicial Appointments Board
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on a judicial appointments board for Scotland. [22035]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have no plans to propose a Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times he has met the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss the Scottish fishing industry since 2 May. [22038]

  Mr. Dewar
  I and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for agriculture, environment and fisheries have regular discussions with our colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about matters relating to the UK fishing industry.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times he has met representatives of Scottish fishing and fish-farming industries since 2 May; if he will list the bodies concerned; and if he will make a statement. [22040]
  105
  Mr. Dewar
  My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for agriculture, environment and fisheries and I have met numerous representative organisations concerned with fisheries since 2 May, including meetings with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Scottish Salmon Growers" Association and the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards.

  NHS (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds will be made available to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the National Health Service; and if he will ensure that the maximum proportion of such funds is used in ways which promote patient care. [21704]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: Ministers have decided that the special occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the National Health Service should be marked with events and initiatives that reflect the Service's achievements and equally importantly herald its further development over the coming years. The Service has been issued with guidance that emphasises that the main focus should be at local level, with active participation of staff and patients, and should reflect the caring ethos of the Health Service.

  The guidance emphasises that events should be low-cost, sponsored, or self-financing so that resources are not diverted from patient care.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the retention of five per cent. of arable area payments due to farmers; and when he expects to complete the payments due for 1997. [22143]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Subject to the continuing co-operation of farmers, we aim to make most final payments by 31 March 1998.

  It is a legal requirement that every field claimed under the 1997 Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) must be checked against a register consisting of unique field identifiers. Failure to carry out such a check would result in the UK suffering disallowance of AAPS funding by the EC Commission. Due to the scale of the task, it was not possible to complete this exercise prior to paying the bulk of the 1997 AAPS claims.

  To avoid payments being delayed, and following discussions with the commission, we have made advance payments of 95 per cent. of the eligible areas claimed. The remainder will be paid when each field can be fully validated.

  To 31 December 1997, Scottish farmers received over £124 million under the 1997 AAPS. Almost £110 million was paid to over 98 per cent. of claimants with a further £14.6 million of advance oilseeds payments. The balance of the oilseeds aid will be paid in the early part of 1998 following the announcement by the Commission of the final payment rate.

  Handguns
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many handguns were taken illegally from(a) firearms dealers, (b) police, (c) the armed forces, (d) members of the public, (e) a common carrier while in transit and (f) firearms clubs, in each year since 1992 in each police force area in Scotland up to the latest available date; what was the largest number taken at any one time; and what were the descriptions of the firearms taken as recorded by the Police. [21840]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have been(a) killed and (b) injured by (i) legally held handguns and (ii) handguns illegally owned or used in each police force area in Scotland in each year since 1992; and for how many deaths and injuries it had not been determined whether the handgun used was legally or illegally held. [21837]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: The tables below detail the number of persons (a) killed and (b) injured by pistols or revolvers held (i) legally and (ii) illegally, in each police force area in Scotland in each of the years 1992 to 1996. Information has also been provided on the number of deaths and injuries caused by a pistol or revolver where it was not possible to determine whether or not the weapon was legally held; either because no accused was identified or the weapon was not recovered.

  Number of persons killed by a pistol or revolver, 1992–96

  Legally held pistol or revolver

  Illegally held pistol or revolver

  Legal possession of pistol or revolver not determined 1

  1992

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  1

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  2

  —

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  3

  —

  1994

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  1

  —

  Northern

  —

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  —

  2

  1

  1995

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  —

  1

  107

  Number of persons killed by a pistol or revolver, 1992–96

  Legally held pistol or revolver

  Illegally held pistol or revolver

  Legal possession of pistol or revolver not determined 1

  1996

  Central 2

  17

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  17

  1

  —

  1 No accused identified or an accused identified but pistol or revolver not recovered.

  2 The figures for 1996 include the 17 fatal injuries which occurred at Dunblane.

  In addition to the number shown above, there were a number of fatalities in which the weapon was not identified therefore it was not possible to determine either the type of weapon or whether or not it was legally held. There were two such cases in 1994, six in 1995 and one in 1996.

  Number of persons injured by a pistol or revolver, 1992–96

  Legally held pistol or revolver

  Illegally held pistol or revolver

  Legal possession of pistol or revolver not determined 1

  1992

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  2

  1

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  2

  1

  1993

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  3

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  2

  1

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  5

  1

  1994

  Central

  —

  2

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  1

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  —

  4

  —

  1995

  Fife

  —

  2

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  2

  1

  Strathclyde

  2

  —

  4

  Total

  2

  4

  5

  1996

  Central2

  14

  —

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  2

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  2

  3

  Total

  14

  4

  3

  1 No accused identified or an accused identified but pistol or revolver not recovered.

  2 The figures of 1996 include the 14 injuries which occurred at Dunblane.

  In addition to the number shown above, there were a number of injuries in which the weapon was not identified therefore it was not possible to determine either the type of weapon or whether or not it was legally held. There were 11 such cases in 1994, 15 in 1995 and seven in 1996.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recommendations made by Sir Stewart Sutherland about improved teacher training as they relate to Scotland. [22095]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am giving careful consideration to the recommendations relating to Scotland in Sir Stewart Sutherland's report on teacher education and training. I hope to be able to respond fully to the recommendations before the end of January.

  Tuition Fees
  Ms Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how soon after supplying the necessary information to the Student Awards Agency applicants for places at Scottish colleges and universities will be notified of the amount they or their parents will have to contribute towards their fees. [21877]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Student Awards Agency for Scotland will be expected to meet its published performance target and respond to fully completed applications within 28 calendar days of receipt. This will apply to both students continuing their studies under the existing arrangements and those entrants in academic year 1998–99 whose entitlement to support with tuition fees will be subject to means-testing.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what additional resources will be allocated to colleges and universities to enable them to pursue the collection of fee income from students and parents who are reluctant to pay; [22272]

  (2) what allowance for uncollected fee income is built into the calculations about college and university finances. [22361]

  Mr. Wilson
  From academic year 1998–99, new students entering full-time courses of higher education will be liable to contribute up to £1,000 towards their tuition. The balance will be paid by the Student Awards Agency in Scotland. The financial support made available to universities and colleges will assume that the assessed fee contributions from students will be paid, but the actual collection arrangements will be a matter for each institution.

  On 3 December, the Government announced that an additional £17 million would be available to higher education sector and an additional £8 million to the further education sector in 1998–99. Uncollected fees and the cost of collection were factors taken into account in the Government's assumption that higher education institutions will collect some £14 million net, and further education colleges some £2 million, in fee income directly from students. This assumed a 5 per cent. reduction in potential gross fee income to take account of uncollected fees and the cost of collection.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to raise standards in Scottish secondary schools. [22036]
  109
  Mr. Wilson
  Implementation of the Government's initiative to raise standards in Scottish schools is being overseen by the Action Group on Standards in Scottish Schools. I chair the Group and membership is widely drawn from within and beyond education.

  In September, with the endorsement of the Action Group, we issued for consultation a strategy paper for the development of a framework of school targets in key areas with national introduction in the school year 1998–99. The key areas are, in the first instance, literacy, numeracy and attainment. The outcome of the consultation was discussed by the Group on 15 December. The Group gave broad support to the principle of target setting; agreed that improvement could be achieved in every school; and agreed also that comparability among similar schools was important. The Action Group agreed to meet again in February to take matters forward.

  Private Finance Initiative (Construction Industry)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on which PFI schemes in Scotland construction work has started; and on which schemes which have not yet started the legal and financial work has been completed. [21878]

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

  In the Health Sector, there are other smaller projects developed on the same principles which fall within Trust and Health Board delegated limits and for which information is not held centrally.

  PFI projects in Scotland

  Procuring agency

  Project description

  (a) Construction/work under way

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Provision and operation of a hospital information system

  Grampian Health Board

  Provision and operation of a community hospital in Kincardineshire (Stonehaven)

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  Provision and operation of an integrated healthcare information system

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Provision of elderly care beds, Mearnskirk Hospital

  Falkirk College

  Stirling Further Education Centre

  M6 DBFO

  Upgrading and maintenance of A74 (M) (M6) between Millbank and Border

  Scottish Prison Service

  Bowhouse Prison, Kilmarnock

  (b) Legal and financial work completed but construction yet to commence

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  Inverness main drainage and Fort William sewage treatment

  Dundee City Council

  Baldovie waste to energy plant

  Cornton Vale Prison
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the funds allocated to Cornton Vale Prison for each of the years 1988–89 to 1992–93 and (b) the allocations under each of the heads of spending into which the figures are broken down, for each of those years. [22059]
  110
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: Total net expenditure (excluding capital, headquarters and other central costs) on Cornton Vale Prison, allocated between vote categories (running costs and other current expenditure), is as shown in the table:

  £ million

  Running costs

  Other current expenditure

  Total

  1988–89

  3.3

  0.3

  3.6

  1989–90

  4.1

  0.2

  4.3

  1990–91

  4.1

  0.3

  4.4

  1991–92

  4.2

  0.3

  4.5

  1992–93

  4.8

  0.4

  5.2

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 10 December, 1997 Official Report, column 625, on Cornton Vale Prison, if he will provide a breakdown of expenditure by budget category for each year. [22115]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: Total net expenditure (excluding capital, Headquarters and other central costs) on Cornton Vale Prison, allocated between vote categories (running costs and other current expenditure), is as shown in the table:

  £ million

  Running costs

  Other current expenditure

  Total

  1993–94

  5.5

  0.4

  5.9

  1994–95

  5.6

  0.4

  6.0

  1995–96

  5.3

  0.4

  5.7

  1996–97

  6.1

  0.4

  6.5

  1997–98 (budget)

  6.2

  0.6

  6.8

  Cattle (Electronic Tagging)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to extend the electronic tagging scheme for cattle from the Borders area to the rest of Scotland; and if he will liaise with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to extend the scheme elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [22276]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Borders electronic tagging scheme is an independent venture over which the Scottish Office has no direct influence. However, Scottish Office officials are in regular contact, and a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food representative recently visited the project. The Agriculture Departments regard electronic tagging as a positive development, and while there are no plans to make it compulsory, the computerised Cattle Tracing System, due to be introduced in Great Britain next year, will accommodate electronic tags.

  Specialist Teachers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the annual statistical return provided by schools to the Scottish Office includes figures for visiting specialist teachers in primary schools and for learning support teachers. [22274]

  Mr. Wilson
  The annual School Census statistical return to individual schools does not collect information on the number of visiting specialist teachers in primary
  111
  schools and for learning support teachers. Such information was last collected in the School Census return to individual teachers in September 1994. The next collection of information on the number of visiting specialist teachers in primary schools and learning support teachers is planned for September 1998.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will co-ordinate and simplify the systems of financial and academic audit of further education colleges. [22266]

  Mr. Wilson
  This matter has been raised with me by the Association of Scottish Colleges. We are considering ways of improving audit procedures without compromising the necessary rigour of financial and academic audit of the further of the further education colleges.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects individual further education colleges to be notified of their Government funding for 1997–98 and 1998–99. [22268]

  Mr. Wilson
  Letters setting out Government grant-aid allocations to individual further education colleges for 1997–98 were issued in February 1997. We shall advise colleges of their allocations for 1998–99 as soon as we have considered responses to recent consultations on proposed changes to the funding methodology, and taken final decisions.

  Ferry Crews
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what language requirements his Department demands in respect of crews employed on ferries operating solely within United Kingdom waters. [22168]

  Mr. McLeish
  All ferries operating within Scotland or from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom are subject to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards of Safety Communications) Regulations 1997 which apply to United Kingdom ships and to all passenger vessels which start or finish a voyage in the United Kingdom. To comply with these regulations, the operators of passenger ferries in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, must ensure that all crew members with a responsibility for assisting passengers in emergency situations have communication skills that are sufficient for that purpose, including the ability to communicate in English. The oversight of these regulations is the responsibility of the Marine Safety Agency, an executive agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Female Prisoners
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many female prisoners have been held in Scotland in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) length of sentence, in the categories (i) three months or less, (ii) three to six months, (iii) six to 12 months, (iv) 12 to 24 months and (v) more than 24 months, (b) type of offence and (c) age, in the categories (1) under 16, (2) 16, (3) 17, (4) 18 to 21, (5) 22 to 25, (6) 26 to 30, (7) 31 to 40, (8) 41 to 50, (9) 51 to 60 and (10) over 60 years. [22364]
  112
  Mr. McLeish
  The information provided is for receptions rather than persons admitted to prison. The tables detail the number of direct sentenced and fine default receptions of female prisoners to Scottish Prison Service establishments by sentence length, type of offence and age in each of the years 1992–1996. One reception is counted if one or more warrants arrive for the same person from the same court on the same day. Some receptions relate to warrants arriving at establishments for people already held in custody.

  As the information is rather lengthy, I have arranged for a copy of the tables to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Pensions (Health and Education)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the additional expenditure which will have to be made by(a) health boards and trusts, (b) further education colleges and (c) universities in Scotland in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000, as a result of the changes in the rules governing advance corporation tax on pensions. [22376]

  Mr. Dewar
  The NHS superannuation scheme is not affected by the changes in the rules governing advance corporation tax.

  Any effects on the superannuation schemes of further education colleges or universities in Scotland would be a matter for the managers of the schemes concerned.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland if he will list the latest estimates by the Register General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in Scotland, together with the equivalent electoral registration figures also expressed as a percentage of these population figures and in ascending order. [22293]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is given in the tables. The population figures have been prepared by a method that involves a certain degree of approximation and therefore should be treated with some caution.

  Council area

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1996) (a)

  Local government electors on the 1997 electoral register (qualifying date 10 October 1996) (b)

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  Argyll and Bute

  73,000

  69,971

  95.9

  East Dunbartonshire

  88,100

  84,978

  96.5

  Moray

  67,700

  65,361

  96.5

  Shetland Islands

  17,600

  17,012

  96.7

  Clackmannanshire

  38,200

  36,927

  96.7

  North Lanarkshire

  255,000

  246,599

  96.7

  Glasgow City

  492,600

  476,784

  96.8

  Midlothian

  63,300

  61,423

  97.0

  Dundee City

  120,700

  117,166

  97.1

  Falkirk

  114,000

  110,692

  97.1

  Aberdeen City

  177,100

  172,066

  97.2

  West Dunbartonshire

  74,500

  72,611

  97.5

  North Ayrshire

  109,200

  106,478

  97.5

  South Lanarkshire

  242,000

  236,038

  97.5

  East Renfrewshire

  69,300

  67,597

  97.5

  113

  Council area

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1996) (a)

  Local government electors on the 1997 electoral register (qualifying date 10 October 1996) (b)

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  Aberdeenshire

  176,600

  172,767

  97.8

  East Ayrshire

  96,300

  94,368

  98.0

  Edinburgh, City of

  369,500

  362,788

  98.2

  Perth and Kinross

  106,100

  104,464

  98.5

  South Ayrshire

  92,200

  90,787

  98.5

  Angus

  88,200

  86,929

  98.6

  West Lothian

  117,000

  115,326

  98.6

  Inverclyde

  68,600

  67,805

  98.8

  Renfrewshire

  141,300

  139,766

  98.9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  117,900

  116,828

  99.1

  Stirling

  66,400

  65,798

  99.1

  East Lothian

  70,100

  69,870

  99.7

  Fife

  276,200

  276,989

  100.3

  Highland

  163,700

  164,711

  100.6

  Scottish Borders

  85,400

  86,051

  100.8

  Orkney Islands

  15,500

  15,658

  101.0

  Comnairle nan Eilean Siar

  22,800

  23,315

  102.3

  Parliamentary constituency

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1996) (a)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1997 electoral register (qualifying date 10 Octomber 1996) (b)

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  Dumbarton

  60,300

  56,875

  94.3

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  54,800

  52,702

  96.2

  Moray

  61,300

  58,957

  96.2

  Aberdeen South

  63,400

  60,982

  96.2

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  56,300

  54,158

  96.2

  Aberdeen Central

  56,700

  54,548

  96.2

  Aberdeen North

  57,000

  54,895

  96.3

  Hamilton South

  48,800

  47,023

  96.4

  Glasgow Springburn

  55,800

  53,814

  96.4

  Glasgow Govan

  52,000

  50,150

  96.4

  Glasgow Cathcart

  51,600

  49,765

  96.4

  Glasgow Maryhill

  54,800

  52,854

  96.4

  Glasgow Kelvin

  59,800

  57,695

  96.5

  Glasgow Pollok

  51,500

  49,693

  96.5

  Glasgow Shettleston

  50,000

  48,270

  96.5

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  66,100

  63,822

  96.6

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  50,300

  48,590

  96.6

  Glasgow Anniesland

  55,200

  53,324

  96.6

  Glasgow Baillieston

  53,400

  51,589

  96.6

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  52,900

  51,106

  96.6

  Airdrie and Shotts

  60,200

  58,255

  96.8

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  54,300

  52,547

  96.8

  Midlothian

  49,600

  48,045

  96.9

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  61,700

  59,884

  97.1

  Falkirk West

  54,900

  53,308

  97.1

  Dundee West

  59,500

  57,809

  97.2

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  62,100

  60,338

  97.2

  FalkirkEast

  59,000

  57,331

  97.2

  Dundee East

  60,500

  58,790

  97.2

  Edinburgh West

  63,500

  61,715

  97.2

  Edinburgh Central

  65,800

  63,969

  97.2

  Ochil

  58,800

  57,170

  97.2

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  63,700

  61,962

  97.3

  Edinburgh South

  64,700

  62,949

  97.3

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  63,800

  62,091

  97.3

  Cunninghame South

  51,600

  50,234

  97.4

  114

  Parliamentary constituency

  Estimate of population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1996) (a)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1997 electoral register (qualifying date 10 Octomber 1996) (b)

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  Cunninghame North

  57,600

  56,147

  97.5

  Clydesdale

  65,700

  64,048

  97.5

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  53,900

  52,643

  97.7

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  61,500

  60,097

  97.7

  Angus

  61,700

  60,359

  97.8

  Banff and Buchan

  60,500

  59,189

  97.8

  Gordon

  60,800

  59,503

  97.9

  North Tayside

  63,200

  62,007

  98.1

  Paisley North

  51,200

  50,261

  98.2

  Perth

  62,000

  60,887

  98.2

  Dumfries

  64,500

  63,360

  98.2

  Paisley South

  55,500

  54,573

  98.3

  Ayr

  57,400

  56,455

  98.4

  Argyll and Bute

  50,800

  49,982

  98.4

  Livingston

  61,900

  60,944

  98.5

  Stirling

  53,900

  53,069

  98.5

  Linlithgow

  55,100

  54,258

  98.5

  West Renfrewshire

  53,900

  53,096

  98.5

  Orkney and Shetland

  33,100

  32,621

  98.6

  Eastwood

  68,500

  67,525

  98.6

  North East Fife

  60,200

  59,352

  98.6

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  67,300

  66,392

  98.7

  East Kilbride

  66,800

  65,915

  98.7

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  50,000

  49,364

  98.7

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  56,500

  56,141

  99.4

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  51,700

  51,448

  99.5

  East Lothian

  58,200

  57,988

  99.6

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  53,400

  53,273

  99.8

  Kirkcaldy

  52,400

  52,618

  100.4

  Central Fife

  58,600

  58,884

  100.5

  Dunfermline West

  52,700

  53,005

  100.6

  Dunfermline East

  52,200

  52,530

  100.6

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  47,400

  47,739

  100.7

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  65,700

  66,278

  100.9

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  41,400

  41,953

  101.3

  Western Isles

  22,800

  23,293

  102.2

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of GPs in Scotland. [22413]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is as follows:

  1978–79: 2,884

  1979–80: 2,921

  1980–81: 2,959

  1991–82: 3,001

  1982–83: 3,040

  1983–84: 3,106

  1984–85: 3,169

  1985–86: 3,223

  1986–87: 3,271

  1987–88: 3,304

  115

  1988–89: 3,354

  1989–90: 3,390

  1990–91: 3,359

  1991–92: 3,379

  1992–93: 3,421

  1993–94: 3,456

  1994–95: 3,490

  1995–96: 3,524

  1996–97: 3,573.

  Gaelic
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the level of resources devoted to the promotion of, and education in, the Gaelic language. [22415]

  Mr. Wilson
  Direct Scottish Office support for Gaelic commenced in 1979–80. The information is set out in the table:

  £ million

  1979–80

  0.061

  1980–81

  0.072

  1981–82

  0.088

  1982–83

  0.101

  1983–84

  0.077

  1984–85

  0.081

  1985–86

  0.121

  1986–87

  0.381

  1987–88

  0.480

  1988–89

  0.708

  1989–90

  1.148

  1990–91

  1.506

  1991–92

  1.962

  1992–93

  11.564

  1993–94

  11.646

  1994–95

  11.183

  1995–96

  11.387

  1996–97

  11.401

  1997–98

  12.473

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of hours of Gaelic broadcasting on(a) radio and (b) television. [22411]

  Mr. Wilson
  Figures for the hours of Gaelic radio and television broadcast are available only for recent years. The main source of Gaelic radio broadcasts in Scotland is BBC Scotland. Figures for hours of radio broadcast on BBC Scotland for the last 3 years are set out in the following list:

  Hours of radio broadcast

  1994–95: 1,588

  1995–96: 1,820

  1996–97: 2,340

  Gaelic television programmes are broadcast by BBC Scotland, Scottish Television, Grampian Television, and Channel 4. Since the establishment of the Gaelic Television Fund the total hours of Gaelic television broadcast are as set out in the following list:

  Hours of television broadcast

  1993: 489

  1994: 569

  116

  1995: 521

  1996: 551

  1997: 528

  Airports (Flight Departures)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of(a) domestic and (b) international departures from Scotland's airports. [22403]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information from 1978 to 1983 is not available. With effect from calendar year 1984, the information is set out in the table:

  Departing air transport movements at Scottish reporting airports 1984–1996

  Domestic

  International

  Total

  1984

  Aberdeen

  15,913

  27,620

  43,533

  1985

  Aberdeen

  15,143

  24,827

  39,970

  1986

  Aberdeen

  13,186

  21,748

  34,934

  1987

  Aberdeen

  13,158

  20,793

  33,951

  1988

  Aberdeen

  14,165

  21,601

  35,766

  1989

  Aberdeen

  16,788

  21,637

  38,425

  1990

  Aberdeen

  18,159

  24,485

  42,644

  1991

  Aberdeen

  18,945

  24,872

  43,817

  1992

  Aberdeen

  19,398

  25,561

  44,959

  1993

  Aberdeen

  21,056

  26,018

  47,074

  1994

  Aberdeen

  20,361

  20,088

  40,449

  1995

  Aberdeen

  20,947

  19,177

  40,124

  1996

  Aberdeen

  21,235

  20,693

  41,928

  1994

  Barra

  377

  —

  377

  1995

  Barra

  554

  —

  554

  1996

  Barra

  567

  —

  567

  1984

  Benbecula

  955

  —

  955

  1985

  Benbecula

  1,034

  1

  1,035

  1986

  Benbecula

  1,026

  —

  1,026

  1987

  Benbecula

  1,024

  —

  1,024

  1988

  Benbecula

  1,016

  —

  1,016

  1989

  Benbecula

  1,033

  —

  1,033

  1990

  Benbecula

  1,068

  3

  1,071

  1991

  Benbecula

  1,147

  9

  1,156

  1992

  Benbecula

  1,144

  13

  1,157

  1993

  Benbecula

  1,116

  4

  1,120

  1994

  Benbecula

  1,276

  —

  1,276

  1995

  Benbecula

  1,436

  —

  1,436

  1996

  Benbecula

  1,445

  —

  1,445

  1996

  Campbeltown

  401

  —

  401

  1984

  Dundee

  1,839

  22

  1,861

  1985

  Dundee

  1,432

  50

  1,482

  1986

  Dundee

  1,459

  29

  1,488

  1987

  Dundee

  988

  17

  1005

  1988

  Dundee

  1,078

  248

  1,326

  1989

  Dundee

  998

  290

  1,288

  1990

  Dundee

  583

  224

  807

  1991

  Dundee

  935

  53

  988

  1992

  Dundee

  1,085

  17

  1,102

  1993

  Dundee

  1,068

  25

  1,093

  1994

  Dundee

  1,020

  31

  1,051

  1995

  Dundee

  714

  23

  737

  1996

  Dundee

  697

  27

  724

  1984

  Edinburgh

  13,893

  2,437

  16,330

  1985

  Edinburgh

  15,080

  2,691

  17,771

  1986

  Edinburgh

  15,233

  2,627

  17,860

  1987

  Edinburgh

  16,293

  2,920

  19,213

  1988

  Edinburgh

  16,915

  2,859

  19,774

  1989

  Edinburgh

  19,618

  3,374

  22,992

  1990

  Edinburgh

  19,955

  3,462

  23,417

  1991

  Edinburgh

  20,377

  3,925

  24,302

  1992

  Edinburgh

  21,698

  5,681

  27,379

  1993

  Edinburgh

  23,140

  5,807

  28,947

  1994

  Edinburgh

  24,109

  6,003

  30,112

  1995

  Edinburgh

  25,197

  6,159

  31,356

  117

  Departing air transport movements at Scottish reporting airports 1984–1996

  Domestic

  International

  Total

  1996

  Edinburgh

  27,329

  6,747

  34,076

  1984

  Glasgow

  20,074

  7,411

  27,485

  1985

  Glasgow

  19,134

  6,676

  25,810

  1986

  Glasgow

  19,156

  9,294

  28,450

  1987

  Glasgow

  19,663

  9,719

  29,382

  1988

  Glasgow

  20,832

  9,870

  30,702

  1989

  Glasgow

  23,297

  10,497

  33,794

  1990

  Glasgow

  24,585

  11,344

  35,929

  1991

  Glasgow

  24,702

  11,230

  35,932

  1992

  Glasgow

  26,246

  12,254

  38,500

  1993

  Glasgow

  25,469

  13,682

  39,151

  1994

  Glasgow

  24,108

  14,142

  38,250

  1995

  Glasgow

  26,498

  11,143

  37,641

  1996

  Glasgow

  27,491

  10,496

  37,987

  1984

  Inverness

  3,792

  77

  3,869

  1985

  Inverness

  3,630

  23

  3,653

  1986

  Inverness

  3,363

  34

  3,397

  1987

  Inverness

  3,073

  22

  3,095

  1988

  Inverness

  3,206

  24

  3,230

  1989

  Inverness

  3,382

  22

  3,404

  1990

  Inverness

  3,261

  50

  3,311

  1991

  Inverness

  2,923

  35

  2,958

  1992

  Inverness

  3,522

  37

  3,559

  1993

  Inverness

  3,203

  86

  3,289

  1994

  Inverness

  3,584

  29

  3,613

  1995

  Inverness

  3,164

  32

  3,196

  1996

  Inverness

  3,345

  47

  3,392

  1984

  Islay

  693

  —

  693

  1985

  Islay

  735

  —

  735

  1986

  Islay

  743

  —

  743

  1987

  Islay

  695

  —

  695

  1988

  Islay

  735

  —

  735

  1989

  Islay

  782

  1

  783

  1990

  Islay

  681

  1

  682

  1991

  Islay

  593

  —

  593

  1992

  Islay

  585

  —

  585

  1993

  Islay

  558

  —

  558

  1994

  Islay

  581

  —

  581

  1995

  Islay

  605

  —

  605

  1996

  Islay

  606

  —

  606

  1984

  Kirkwall

  4,950

  92

  5,042

  1985

  Kirkwall

  4,948

  61

  5,009

  1986

  Kirkwall

  4,798

  27

  4,825

  1987

  Kirkwall

  4,763

  55

  4,818

  1988

  Kirkwall

  5,056

  59

  5,115

  1989

  Kirkwall

  5,287

  27

  5,314

  1990

  Kirkwall

  5,912

  41

  5,953

  1991

  Kirkwall

  5,492

  40

  5,532

  1992

  Kirkwall

  5,340

  47

  5,387

  1993

  Kirkwall

  4,840

  55

  4,895

  1994

  Kirkwall

  4,587

  35

  4,622

  1995

  Kirkwall

  4,605

  89

  4,694

  1996

  Kirkwall

  4,537

  66

  4,603

  1984

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,659

  —

  1,659

  1985

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,677

  —

  1,677

  1986

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,664

  —

  1,664

  1987

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,672

  —

  1,672

  1988

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,634

  —

  1,634

  1989

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,597

  —

  1,597

  1990

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,592

  —

  1,592

  1991

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,420

  —

  1,420

  1992

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,219

  —

  1,219

  1993

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,165

  —

  1,165

  1994

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,246

  —

  1,246

  1995

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,292

  —

  1,292

  1996

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  1,253

  —

  1,253

  1984

  Prestwick

  684

  917

  1,601

  1985

  Prestwick

  507

  1,061

  1,568

  1986

  Prestwick

  447

  1,098

  1,545

  1987

  Prestwick

  689

  1,337

  2,026

  1988

  Prestwick

  714

  1,427

  2,141

  1989

  Prestwick

  852

  1,622

  2,474

  1990

  Prestwick

  989

  846

  1,835

  1991

  Prestwick

  928

  431

  1,359

  1992

  Prestwick

  771

  273

  1,044

  1993

  Prestwick

  269

  523

  792

  118

  Departing air transport movements at Scottish reporting airports 1984–1996

  Domestic

  International

  Total

  1994

  Prestwick

  94

  1,113

  1,207

  1995

  Prestwick

  996

  1,829

  2,825

  1996

  Prestwick

  2,874

  1,887

  4,761

  1984

  Scatsta

  590

  —

  590

  1985

  Scatsta

  482

  —

  482

  1986

  Scatsta

  345

  —

  345

  1987

  Scatsta

  352

  —

  352

  1988

  Scatsta

  641

  4

  645

  1989

  Scatsta

  381

  13

  394

  1990

  Scatsta

  295

  1

  296

  1991

  Scatsta

  304

  22

  326

  1992

  Scatsta

  321

  —

  321

  1993

  Scatsta

  378

  —

  378

  1994

  Scatsta

  391

  —

  391

  1995

  Scatsta

  415

  —

  415

  1996

  Scatsta

  684

  1,124

  1,808

  1984

  Stornoway

  1,592

  15

  1,607

  1985

  Stornoway

  1,616

  5

  1,621

  1986

  Stornoway

  1,629

  6

  1,635

  1987

  Stornoway

  1,578

  7

  1,585

  1988

  Stornoway

  1,558

  5

  1,563

  1989

  Stornoway

  1,630

  7

  1,637

  1990

  Stornoway

  1,961

  5

  1,966

  1991

  Stornoway

  1,874

  6

  1,880

  1992

  Stornoway

  2,003

  —

  2,003

  1993

  Stornoway

  1,907

  1

  1,908

  1994

  Stornoway

  1,964

  2

  1,968

  1995

  Stornoway

  1,975

  24

  1,999

  1996

  Stornoway

  2,012

  69

  2,081

  1984

  Sumburgh

  3,340

  3,406

  6,746

  1985

  Sumburgh

  3,205

  3,660

  6,865

  1986

  Sumburgh

  3,328

  2,948

  6,276

  1987

  Sumburgh

  3,420

  4,062

  7,482

  1988

  Sumburgh

  3,895

  4,866

  8,761

  1989

  Sumburgh

  4,678

  6,177

  10,855

  1990

  Sumburgh

  4,850

  7,294

  12,144

  1991

  Sumburgh

  4,818

  7,608

  12,426

  1992

  Sumburgh

  4,505

  5,433

  9,938

  1993

  Sumburgh

  4,456

  5,213

  9,669

  1994

  Sumburgh

  5,256

  6,395

  11,651

  1995

  Sumburgh

  5,565

  7,194

  12,759

  1996

  Sumburgh

  4,968

  5,952

  10,920

  1984

  Tiree

  507

  —

  507

  1985

  Tiree

  506

  —

  506

  1986

  Tiree

  491

  —

  491

  1987

  Tiree

  482

  —

  482

  1988

  Tiree

  524

  —

  524

  1989

  Tiree

  427

  1

  428

  1990

  Tiree

  408

  —

  408

  1991

  Tiree

  401

  2

  403

  1992

  Tiree

  376

  1

  377

  1993

  Tiree

  366

  1

  367

  1994

  Tiree

  517

  —

  517

  1995

  Tiree

  376

  —

  376

  1996

  Tiree

  368

  —

  368

  1984

  Unst

  1,189

  1,951

  3,140

  1985

  Unst

  1,047

  1,705

  2,752

  1986

  Unst

  1,109

  1,819

  2,928

  1987

  Unst

  1,125

  1,962

  3,087

  1988

  Unst

  1,105

  1,846

  2,951

  1989

  Unst

  963

  1,547

  2,510

  1990

  Unst

  918

  1,381

  2,299

  1991

  Unst

  892

  1,383

  2,275

  1992

  Unst

  851

  1,251

  2,102

  1993

  Unst

  1,287

  2,513

  3,800

  1994

  Unst

  1,013

  1,418

  2,431

  1995

  Unst

  818

  1,198

  2,016

  1996

  Unst

  508

  273

  781

  1984

  Wick

  2,324

  2

  2,326

  1985

  Wick

  2,285

  4

  2,289

  1986

  Wick

  2,461

  6

  2,467

  1987

  Wick

  2,195

  6

  2,201

  1988

  Wick

  2,743

  6

  2,749

  1989

  Wick

  2,495

  9

  2,504

  1990

  Wick

  2,119

  7

  2,126

  1991

  Wick

  1,925

  5

  1,930

  119

  Departing air transport movements at Scottish reporting airports 1984–1996

  Domestic

  International

  Total

  1992

  Wick

  1,882

  6

  1,888

  1993

  Wick

  1,597

  30

  1,627

  1994

  Wick

  1,749

  83

  1,832

  1995

  Wick

  2,155

  227

  2,382

  1996

  Wick

  1,970

  296

  2,266

  Notes:

  1. Air Transport Movements include scheduled and non-scheduled operations by UK and foreign carriers, Air Taxis are included.

  2. Includes fixed wing and helicopter flights. Oil rig operations are counted as international.

  3. Scottish reporting airports only.

  4. Barra commenced reporting in April 1994.

  5. Campbeltown commenced reporting in April 1996.

  Source:

  Civil Aviation Authority Airport Returns.

  Nursery Schooling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the percentage of Scottish children attending a nursery school in their pre-school year. [22400]

  Mr. Wilson
  The percentages of the number of pupils aged four attending nursery schools classes as at September in each year are set out in the table:

  Education authority nursery schools/classes in Scotland

  School year

  Percentage of four-year-olds attending1

  1978–79

  29.1

  1979–80

  30.1

  1980–81

  31.7

  1981–82

  36.1

  1982–83

  37.8

  1983–84

  39.1

  1984–95

  39.3

  1985–96

  n/a

  1986–87

  n/a

  1987–88

  43.3

  1988–89

  45.9

  1989–90

  46.7

  1990–91

  47.3

  1991–92

  49.3

  1992–93

  50.9

  1993–94

  52.7

  1994–95

  55.0

  1995–96

  53.5

  1996–97

  54.2

  1 Based on the relevant mid-year estimate of the 4-year-old population

  Motor Cars
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of new motor cars registered in Scotland. [22391]

  Mr. McLeish
  The number of new cars registered in Scotland each year since 1978 is set out in the table.

  Year

  New registrations of cars Thousands

  1978

  135.5

  1979

  136.4

  1980

  127.8

  1981

  126.2

  120

  Year

  New registrations of cars Thousands

  1982

  132.5

  1983

  154.2

  1984

  144.8

  1985

  144.7

  1986

  147.8

  1987

  154.5

  1988

  164.8

  1989

  175.8

  1990

  160.3

  1991

  127.2

  1992

  129.8

  1993

  146.0

  1994

  143.3

  1995

  144.5

  1996

  153.8

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 average salaries in primary and secondary schools in Scotland in(a) cash terms and (b) current prices. [22401]

  Mr. Wilson
  Teachers' salaries are the responsibility of local authorities as employers. Information on average salaries is not held centrally.

  Hospital Salaries
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average annual salary of(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) consultants employed in Scotland's hospitals for each year since 1978–79 in 1996 prices. [22388]

  Mr. Galbraith
  It is not possible to identify the average annual salary of nurses, doctors and consultants. The current salary ranges for qualified nurses, doctors and consultants employed on national terms and conditions are as follows:

  £

  Nurses

  12,385 to 25,975

  Doctors

  15,440 to 56,470

  Consultants

  43,750 to 56,470

  Nursery Provision
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with local authority representatives to discuss nursery provision. [22381]

  Mr. Wilson
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had meetings with COSLA expressly for this purpose. However, officials met COSLA on 29 August 1997 to discuss pre-school education generally, and have also met 14 local education authorities individually as part of an ongoing programme of liaison visits on pre-school education provision. COSLA and a number of individual
  121
  authorities are part of a standing liaison group between officials and pre-school education providers in all the sectors. There are other contacts with local authorities in various fora, such as ADES. I published a major consultation paper on the future of pre-school education last November, a copy of which is available in the Library; the closing date for responses is 6 February.

  Hospital Operations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of(a) hospital operations and (b) hip operations carried out in Scotland. [22386]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Year ending 31 March

  Total number of in-patient/day case operations and procedures1 (Excludes obstetrics and psychiatric specialties)

  Number of total and partial hip replacements1

  1979

  309,158

  2,645

  1980

  331,351

  3,124

  1981

  351,576

  3,207

  1982

  370,458

  3,642

  1983

  326,571

  3,389

  1984

  407,437

  4,247

  1985

  424,615

  4,224

  1986

  445,284

  4,722

  1987

  458,698

  5,035

  1988

  477,855

  5,323

  1989

  496,189

  5,542

  1990

  504,048

  5,571

  1991

  525,664

  5,686

  1992

  560,668

  5,886

  1993

  631,775

  6,197

  1994

  713,563

  6,312

  1995

  760,282

  6,622

  1996

  795,148

  6,958

  19972

  824,307

  6,869

  Notes:

  1 Includes secondary operations and procedures during the same episode of care.

  2 Provisional.

  Source:

  SMR1.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the average household income in Scotland. [22394]

  Mr. Wilson
  Total income and total income per head for Scotland for the household sector is given in the table. The household sector covers individuals living in households and in institutions. Data are available from 1984 only and are given at current prices.

  Household income: Scotland

  Total household income £ million

  Total household income per head £

  1984

  23,423

  4,552

  1985

  25,386

  4,942

  1986

  27,493

  5,369

  1987

  29,560

  5,782

  1988

  31,573

  6,198

  1989

  35,306

  6,927

  1990

  40,313

  7,901

  1991

  42,998

  8,419

  1992

  46,849

  9,166

  122

  Household income: Scotland

  Total household income £ million

  Total household income per head £

  1933

  47,950

  9,365

  1994

  48,459

  9,442

  1995

  50,542

  9,840

  Source:

  Regional Accounts, Office for National Statistics.

  Roads and Bridges
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on public expenditure of the measures contained in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Invergarry, Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order (Variation) Order 1997; from what budget expenditure it is to be met; and if he will make a statement. [22377]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Order gives effect to the reductions in discounted tolls on the Skye Bridge agreed between my right hon. Friend and Skye Bridge Ltd. The impact on public expenditure depends on users' uptake of the discounted tolls, but is limited to a maximum of £600,000 per annum (at 1996 traffic and toll levels). The limit will be revised annually to reflect traffic growth and inflation. The public expenditure will be met from the Roads and Transport Programme and will displace other expenditure on that programme.

  Hospital Staff
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) consultants employed in Scotland's hospitals. [22390]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is shown in the table.

  Hospital staff employed by the NHS in Scotland

  Year

  Nurses1

  Doctors2, 3

  Consultants2, 3

  1978

  24,145

  5,826

  1,837

  1979

  24,512

  5,998

  1,868

  1980

  25,318

  6,020

  1,887

  1981

  27,124

  6,181

  1,907

  1982

  28,508

  6,206

  1,932

  1983

  29,521

  6,305

  1,951

  1984

  30,358

  6,332

  1,994

  1985

  31,177

  6,319

  2,008

  1986

  31,788

  6,242

  2,025

  1987

  32,432

  6,227

  2,061

  1988

  33,672

  6,529

  2,129

  1989

  34,367

  6,584

  2,139

  1990

  34,637

  6,693

  2,216

  1991

  35,228

  6,706

  2,230

  1992

  35,430

  6,884

  2,253

  1993

  34,822

  6,942

  2,292

  1994

  34,861

  7,164

  2,350

  1995

  34,590

  7,339

  2,470

  1996

  34,460

  7,620

  2,572

  1 Nurses are defined as qualified nurses. The transfer of elderly, physically and mentally infirm, and patients with learning disabilities out of long-term hospital care to community based settings since 1992 has resulted in a number of hospital nurses moving to a community setting.

  2 Excludes community medical staff.

  3 Doctors include consultants.

  Jobs (Inward Investment)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state for each of the years between 1978–79 and 1996–97 inclusive, the number of(a) jobs created and (b) safeguarded in Scotland as a result of inward investment projects; and if he will indicate those projects that have (i) created and (ii) safeguarded 100 jobs or more. [22419]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of jobs which the inward investment projects attracted to Scotland since April 1981 were expected to create or safeguarded is as follows:

  Year1

  New

  Planned jobs Safeguarded

  Total

  1981–82

  4,559

  2,443

  7,002

  1982–83

  4,181

  1,146

  5,327

  1983–84

  3,446

  3,460

  6,906

  1984–85

  8,077

  1,194

  9,271

  1985–86

  4,663

  3,554

  8,217

  1986–87

  4,106

  978

  5,084

  1987–88

  6,746

  5,106

  11,852

  1988–89

  4,846

  2,243

  7,089

  1989–90

  9,649

  2,640

  12,289

  1990–91

  6,900

  3,344

  10,244

  1991–92

  4,857

  1,145

  6,002

  1992–93

  5,342

  2,717

  8,059

  1993–94

  7,688

  3,384

  11,072

  1994–95

  9,114

  3,215

  12,329

  1995–96

  10,136

  2,424

  12,560

  1996–97

  11,148

  3,147

  14,295

  1 Figures for years prior to 1981–82 are not available.

  Tables listing the projects which were expected to create or safeguard 100 or more jobs have been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Statistics
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients treated in Scotland's hospitals. [22392]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Year ending 31 March

  In-patient discharges

  Day case discharges

  New out-patients attendances1

  1979

  737,816

  80,271

  1,039,326

  1980

  764,301

  87,223

  1,035,655

  1981

  785,080

  98,044

  1,056,458

  1982

  793,171

  104,729

  1,056,364

  1983

  744,436

  98,592

  1,022,218

  1984

  809,010

  126,721

  1,070,042

  1985

  821,588

  132,615

  1,086,687

  1986

  837,044

  147,132

  1,121,911

  1987

  842,524

  154,701

  1,145,258

  1988

  871,287

  159,763

  1,169,512

  1989

  882,347

  175,970

  1,184,200

  1990

  895,790

  185,974

  1,195,467

  1991

  912,370

  203,633

  1,204,850

  1992

  920,144

  213,846

  1,232,966

  1993

  941,740

  242,712

  1,264,859

  1994

  952,256

  284,996

  1,281,914

  124

  Year ending 31 March

  In-patient discharges

  Day case discharges

  New out-patients attendances1

  1995

  959,921

  326,756

  1,312,480

  1996

  973,404

  354,410

  1,326,600

  19972

  975,846

  362,799

  1,331,992

  Notes:

  1 Excludes accident and emergency attendances.

  2 Provisional.

  Source:

  ISD(S)1.

  Road Statistics
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of miles of(a) dual carriageway and (b) motorway in Scotland. [22387]

  Mr. McLeish
  The numbers of miles of(a) dual carriageway and (b) motorway (excluding slip roads) in Scotland, reported by the appropriate authorities in annual Road Lengths returns for 1981 and later years, are shown in the table. Such figures are not readily available for the years prior to 1981.

  Year (as at 1 April)

  Dual carriageway

  Motorway (excluding slip roads)

  1981

  365

  146

  1982

  369

  147

  1983

  375

  147

  1984

  398

  147

  1985

  412

  151

  1986

  433

  151

  1987

  454

  152

  1988

  470

  160

  1989

  478

  160

  1990

  500

  161

  1991

  538

  160

  1992

  537

  167

  1993

  536

  177

  1994

  536

  190

  19951

  517

  193

  1996

  535

  193

  1 There may have been under-reporting of dual carriageway road lengths for 1995.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the percentage of Scottish households owning one or more motor cars. [22389]

  Mr. McLeish
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the percentage of Scottish households which had regular use of cars, for each year since 1978–79 for which such estimates are available. The figure for 1981 is from the Census of Population. The other years' figures were estimated from the results of three sample surveys (the Family Expenditure Survey, the General Household Survey and the National Travel Survey), and are therefore subject to sampling errors. Accordingly, undue weight should not be placed on the figure for any single year, or upon the apparent change between one year and the next.
  125

  Year(s)

  Estimated percentage of Scottish households with regular use of cars

  1978–79

  48

  1981

  51

  1985–86

  53

  1986–87

  51

  1988

  53

  1989

  55

  1990

  58

  1991

  58

  1992

  57

  1993

  60

  1994

  62

  1995

  64

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from island communities about the costs of fares on ferry service in West of Scotland. [22384]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from island communities in the West of Scotland concerning the proposal by Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. to implement an average 5 per cent. rise in ferry fares across their network. These representations included a petition, protesting against the company's intention to levy above-average rises on the Ullapool-Stornoway route, which was presented to my right hon. Friend on 5 December 1997 by the Vice-Convenor of Western Isles Council.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the rate of growth in the Scottish economy for each year since 1978–79. [22410]

  Mr. Wilson
  Output-based Gross Domestic Product (GDP(O)) in Scotland rose by an average annual rate of 1.6 per cent. between 1978 and 1995. The annual growth rates are given in the table:

  Growth in GDP(O) for Scotland

  1978–79

  1.0

  1979–80

  -1.9

  1980–81

  -1.4

  1981–82

  1.5

  1982–83

  1.4

  1983–84

  3.8

  1984–85

  2.8

  1985–86

  0.4

  1986–87

  2.0

  1987–88

  4.1

  1988–89

  2.6

  1989–90

  2.2

  1990–91

  0.2

  1991–92

  1.4

  1992–93

  2.3

  1993–94

  2.2

  1994–95

  2.1

  Source:

  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department.

  Exports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing exports from Scotland in each year since 1978–79. [22412]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government do not maintain separate export figures for Scotland. The following figures are based on data maintained by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

  Year

  Scottish manufactured exports (£ million) (unadjusted)

  1979

  3,409

  1980

  3,762

  1981

  4,024

  1982

  4,065

  1983

  4,532

  1984

  4,953

  1985

  5,522

  1986

  5,137

  1987

  6,026

  1988

  7,166

  1989

  7,664

  1990

  8,574

  1991

  8,833

  1992

  9,682

  1993

  11,540

  1994

  14,264

  1995

  17,316

  1996

  18,415

  Diabetes
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will support the introduction of a national screening programme for diabetes among high risk groups, with particular reference to those aged over 40 years with a hereditary propensity. [21617]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government receive advice on national screening programmes from the UK National Screening Committee, which prioritises existing or future screening programmes against criteria which are internationally recognised. The Committee will consider national screening for diabetes, along with other possible screening programmes, in accordance with its developing work programme. Any future decisions on a national programme will be made in the light of those considerations.

  Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if students who take a year out from their studies will be able to return to the same financial arrangements as before their year out. [22405]

  Mr. Wilson
  Eligible students who have already embarked on a continuous programme of full-time higher education up to first degree level will retain their entitlement to assistance under the existing arrangements until they complete that continuous programme.

  Students who take a year out from study during a course of higher education will have their award suspended during that period, provided the absence is approved by the academic authority. They will then be able to return to the course under the same student support arrangements. Students who take a year out between two

  127
  separate courses of higher education will have their eligibility reassessed as new entrants at the beginning of the new course.

  Students who took a year out prior to beginning their programme of study in academic year 1998–99 will be eligible for support under the existing arrangements if they had, by 1 August 1997, a firm offer of a place deferred until 1998, or a provisional offer for deferred entry which was subsequently confirmed.

DEFENCE

  Former Military Airfields
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that structures and runways of former military airfields which are of historic significance are safeguarded. [20208]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is fully compliant with the Government's Nine Point Plan of Action for care of Historic buildings which establishes appropriate levels of care for the continued upkeep of statutorily protected buildings and sites. This includes former military airfields.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Strategic Defence Review will examine the capacity for increased jointery in Britain's armed forces. [20209]

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Strategic Defence Review will examine the capacity for increased jointery in Britain's armed forces. [20230]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Enhanced joint-Service co-operation, as a means both of enhancing efficiency whilst maintaining military effectiveness, is one of the main themes of the Strategic Defence Review. A great deal of work is in hand to examine practical options to achieve it.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the delay in completing the Strategic Defence Review; and what consultations he has held with the Treasury. [20215]

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in completing the Strategic Defence Review. [20223]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the right hon. Member and the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 November 1997 to my hon. Friend, the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George),Official Report, column 499–500.

  HM Treasury and other Government Departments have been and will continue to be consulted throughout the Strategic Defence Review.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the foreign policy base line for the Strategic Defence Review. [20216]
  128
  Mr. George Robertson
  In my speech to the House on 27 October 1997,Official Report, Columns 609–20, I outlined the emerging conclusions of the first phase of the Strategic Defence Review, which looked at the foreign and security policy framework. This work will form an important part of the Review White Paper which I envisage publishing in the first part of year.

  NATO Enlargement
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [20210]

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [20217]

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [20226]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The protocols for the accession of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO were signed in December by NATO Foreign Ministers: all Allies now need to ratify them. NATO is continuing its work with the invited countries to ensure their effective military and political integration into the Alliance.

  Smart Procurement Initiative
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make statement on the progress of the Government's smart procurement initiative. [20211]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD is undertaking a fundamental and rigorous review of its procurement and commercial practices and of the organisation required to ensure that its business is done both economically and efficiently, and in a framework of continuing improvement. Much has already been done and we are now engaging industry in a constructive dialogue to ensure that they play their full part in improving our business.

  Armed Services (Complement)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how many each of the armed services was below establishment on 1 January. [20212]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details for 1 January are not yet available. As at 1 November 1997, the latest figures available, the shortfall in trained strength against trained requirement for each of the Armed Forces was as follows: Naval Service, 1,900; Army, about 4,500; and RAF, 2,900.

  Royal Naval College
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Naval College. [20213]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Considerable progress has been made on establishing the arrangements for the future of this magnificent site. I have now agreed the financial terms whereby the Foundation will hold the site by a lease from the Greenwich Hospital. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and my own are working closely with the Foundation with a view to concluding shortly a package of financial and other support.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends visiting the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. [20218]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I visited the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps on 23 June last year. I currently have no plans for a further visit.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in respect of the Eurofighter project. [20219]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 417.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the need for a mid-life upgrade for the Eurofighter; and in which areas of capability. [22694]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Eurofighter is still being developed and the Memoranda of Understanding to commit to the production and support phases of the programme were only signed on 22 December 1997. I am confident that Eurofighter will respond to meet the operational requirements for which it is designed. Moreover, the Eurofighter design has growth potential to enable it to be modified to respond to changes in the threat and to take account of relevant tactical and technological developments. On this basis the question of a Eurofighter mid-life upgrade is likely to be one for consideration some years away.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the anticipated annual costs of ownership of Eurofighter over the operational life of the aeroplanes ordered. [22693]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The current estimated annual in-service support cost to the UK of Eurofighter is £230 million.

  Public Expenditure Review
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's review of public expenditure on defence(a) procurement and (b) research in the south-east of England; and if he will assess the advantages of relating such expenditure to the Barnett formula. [20220]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department places contracts for research and for procurement on the basis of value for money after open competition wherever practicable. As such, this public expenditure is not targeted at any region in particular but depends upon the distribution across the UK of suppliers.

  The latest figures available for the breakdown of expenditure on procurement by region are contained in Section 1.9 of the "UK Defence Statistics 1996", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. No similar figures are held centrally for research spending.
  130
  It would not be appropriate to apply the Barnett formula, or any other regionalisation mechanism, to defence spending on procurement and research as this would run contrary to our policy of obtaining best value for money for the taxpayer.

  Long-term Costings
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in respect of the publication of his Department's long-term costings. [20221]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 8 July 1997,Official Report, column 425. I am aware of no other representations on the publication of the Ministry of Defence's long-term costings.

  Challenger Tank
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the Army's current operational requirement for the Challenger tank. [20222]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have received a number of representations on the Army's current operational requirement for a main battle tank, which is to be met by Challenger 2.

  Landmines
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards a worldwide landmine ban through the Ottawa Process. [20224]

  Mr. George Robertson
  On 3 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development signed the Ottawa Convention. In the first two days, 125 countries signed the Convention which will ban the production, transfer, manufacture and use of anti-personnel landmines. This is a development which the Government warmly welcome; but there is no room for complacency and we will be pursuing complementary activity, notably in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, in order to ensure the widest possible participation in a ban of these weapons. The UK will seek to ratify the Convention as soon as possible; primary legislation will be required to enable the UK to meet fully its obligations under the Convention. The Government intend to bring forward the necessary Bill as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows.

  Defence Medical Service
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current state of the Defence Medical Service. [20225]

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for the Defence Medical Service. [20229]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 1 December 1997,Official Report, columns 22–23.

  131
  The main problems experienced by the Defence Medical Service at present are shortages of personnel and equipment. The greatest manpower shortages are among general and orthopaedic surgeons, anaesthetists, physicians and operating theatre nurses.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to protect British service personnel in the event of their being deployed where chemical and biological weapons are a threat. [20227]

  Mr. Spellar
  Defensive measures taken to protect British service personnel against the threat of use of chemical and biological weapons comprise five components: Detection, Identification and Monitoring; Warning and Reporting; Individual and Collective Protection; Contamination Control; and Medical Countermeasures. Work is continuing to improve our capability in all five areas.

  The passive defensive measures are part of a spectrum of capabilities relevant to chemical and biological threats, including intelligence and command and control, air defence, operational doctrine and training, and the potential for retaliatory military action. The Government are also fully committed to active support of arms control and non-proliferation measures to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

  European Defence Industry (Restructuring)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of European defence industry restructuring on his procurement programmes. [20214]

  Mr. Spellar
  The success of our procurement programmes depends on a strong defence industrial base. European companies must remain competitive on the world market to ensure their survival and commercial well being. Restructuring is essential if we are going to maintain a globally competitive defence industry.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on European defence industry restructuring. [20228]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell).

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many goodwill calls were made by(a) Irish naval vessels to the UK and (b) the Royal Navy to the Republic of Ireland in each of the last three years. [22537]

  Dr. Reid
  Irish Naval Service vessels did not pay any goodwill visits to the UK in 1995. One was made in 1996, and three in 1997. Royal Navy ships paid two goodwill visits to the Republic of Ireland in 1995, one in 1996 and two in 1997.

  Armed Forces (Disabled People)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many disabled people work(a) in the Ministry of Defence and (b) for the armed forces; and how many work at rates below £4 an hour. [22643]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of civilian staff who were recorded as having some form of disability on my Department's civilian disability database at 1 October 1997 was 4,312. This includes staff serving in Defence Agencies. Armed Forces personnel are exempt from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and therefore there are no accurate records of disabled Service personnel. Details of these, and how many disabled civilian staff work at rates below £4 an hour, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many secure cycling spaces there are in his Department. [22678]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-lethal Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministry of Defence establishments have been carrying out research into non-lethal weapon technologies since 1990. [21884]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has for some years conducted research into potential Non-Lethal Weapons technologies to assess not only performance but also operational deplorability, supportability, environmental impact and effect on personnel. Accordingly, a wide range of technologies have been examined at various Establishments, all of which have now been subsumed into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the size reduction facility at AWE Aldermaston to be completed and able to commence operations. [21810]

  Mr. Spellar
  An interim facility should be completed and available to start operations by summer of 1998. Options for a longer term facility are under consideration.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current space storage capacity at AWE Aldermaston for nuclear waste designated for disposal at the NIREX deep waste repository. [21807]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the previous Government's decision in March 1997 not to support Nirex's appeal against the decision of the planning inspector concerning the proposed rock characterisation facility at Sellafield, none of the radioactive waste at AWE is designated for disposal at Nirex. Safe and secure storage for AWE' s Intermediate Level Waste will be provided as necessary until a new national policy for the disposal of such material has been devised.
  133
  The total storage capacity for Intermediate Level Waste at AWE Aldermaston is 4,000 cubic metres of which approximately a quarter is still available.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to construct further nuclear waste stores at AWE Aldermaston. [21834]

  Mr. Spellar
  Construction of a new Intermediate Level Waste store is under consideration.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public safety assessments have been made of buildings at AWE Aldermaston converted from their previous use to become nuclear waste stores. [21805]

  Mr. Spellar
  All facilities at AWE Aldermaston that store radioactive waste have safety cases prepared which are submitted to the Health and Safety Executive and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much intermediate-level and low-level nuclear waste that cannot be disposed of at Drigg is currently in store at AWE Aldermaston. [21806]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is currently 2,549 cubic metres of intermediate and low level waste in store at AWE Aldermaston which is not suitable for disposal at BNFL Drigg.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated costs, for each of the next 10 years, of decommissioning old buildings and equipment at AWE Aldermaston. [21833]

  Mr. Spellar
  The detailed plans for decommissioning old buildings and equipment over the next ten years at AWE Aldermaston represent projections and assumptions which inform advice to Ministers on the affordability of that particular element of the defence programme and have not yet received approval. Accordingly I am withholding this information under exemption 2, internal discussions and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if repairs to the A91 plant at AWE Aldermaston have now been completed; and when he expects the plant to become fully operational. [21804]

  Mr. Spellar
  The repairs to A91 are complete. It is expected that the plant will become fully operational in 1999.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the estimated annual arisings of(a) low-level waste that can be disposed of at Drigg,
  (b) low-level nuclear waste that cannot be disposed of at Drigg, (c) intermediate-level nuclear waste arising from normal operations, (d) intermediate-level waste arising from decommissioning, (e) low-level waste arising from decommissioning operations that can be disposed of at Drigg and (f) low-level waste arising from decommissioning operations that cannot be disposed of at Drigg, from AWE Aldermaston, in each of the years between the present and 2020. [21808]
  134
  Mr. Spellar
  Forecasts of waste arisings are produced annually for the following ten years. The present forecast is (all volumes shown in cubic metres):

  (a) low level waste that can be disposed of at BNFL Drigg:

  1998: 1,900

  1999: 2,200

  2000: 1,800

  2001: 2,800

  2002: 3,000

  2003: 1,500

  2004: 3,700

  2005: 3,300

  2006: 2,500

  2007: 3,000

  (b) low level waste that cannot be disposed of at Drigg is not forecast separately from intermediate level waste arisings and is included in (d) below.

  (c) intermediate-level waste arising from normal operations:

  1998: 40

  1999: 40

  2000: 40

  2001: 40

  2002: 40

  2003: 40

  2004: 40

  2005: 40

  2006: 40

  2007: 40

  (d) intermediate-level waste arising from decommissioning:

  1998: 190

  1999: 130

  2000: 220

  2001: 170

  2002: 150

  2003: 160

  2004: 170

  2005: 160

  2006: 150

  2007: 150

  (e) low level waste arising from decommissioning operations that can be disposed of at Drigg:

  1998: 400

  1999: 760

  2000: 510

  2001: 1,580

  2002: 1,970

  2003: 680

  2004: 3,010

  2005: 2,750

  2006: 2,010

  2007: 2,530

  (f) low level wastage arising from decommissioning operations that cannot be disposed of at Drigg is not forecast separately from ILW arisings and is included in (d) above.

  AWE Visits (French Officials)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the visits made by French officials to each United Kingdom atomic weapons establishments since October 1996. [21827]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of the visits are as follows. It is not possible to be more precise as the information requested is not held centrally.

  Dates

  Aldermaston

  Burghfield

  Foulness

  October 1996 to March 1997

  5

  0

  0

  April 1997 to December 1997

  6

  0

  0

  Sludge (Aldermaston)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the sludge solidification treatment facility at AWE Aldermaston to be completed and able to commence operations. [21809]

  Mr. Spellar
  The sludge solidification treatment facility is complete and is being used to support commissioning of A91.

  Trident
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom personnel are stationed in the US, and US personnel stationed in the United Kingdom, under the terms of the 1958 Agreement and the Polaris sales agreements, as amended for Trident. [21830]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently five UK personnel stationed in the US as part of the 1958 Agreement. In addition, 3 AWE employees are there on short-term appointments. A further 15 British personnel are in the USA as part of the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended for Trident.

  As regards US personnel stationed in the UK, none is here under the terms of the 1958 Agreement. There are 4 US employees in the UK as part of the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended for Trident.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to the United Kingdom of engineering services provided at the Sandia National Laboratory for the development, evaluation, production and stockpile surveillance of the UK's Trident re-entry body system. [21821]

  Mr. Spellar
  The relevant cost this year is estimated to be between $1 and 2 million.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if construction has begun on the new refit yard for Trident submarines at Devonport Royal Dockyard; and if he will make a statement. [21217]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The contract with Devonport Management Ltd. covers both the design and construction of Trident submarine refitting and refuelling facilities, and the modernisation of existing nuclear submarine support facilities. Construction work
  136
  on the existing facilities is progressing. Preparatory work on the Trident facilities, including the detailed design phase, is underway.

  Gloveboxes
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many gloveboxes are currently in store, awaiting treatment and disposal, at AWE Aldermaston. [21832]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are at present forty-one gloveboxes stored at AWE Aldermaston. Decommissioned gloveboxes are classified as Intermediate Level Waste. Safe and secure storage is provided at the site.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of occasions since April 1996 on which United Kingdom officials have visited(a) CEA and (b) DGA facilities. [21828]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, details of visits made by personnel from the Atomic Weapons Establishments are as follows:

  CEA

  DGA

  April 1996 to March 1997

  12

  3

  April 1997 to December 1997

  10

  2

  Atomic Co-ordinating Offices
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in the Atomic Co-ordinating offices in London and Washington; what are their Civil Service grades; and what are the annual operating costs of each office. [21829]

  Mr. Spellar
  The details requested are currently as follows:

  Atomic Control Office, London

  Senior Executive Officer: 0.51

  Executive Office: 1

  Administrative Officer: 1

  Administrative Assistance: 4

  1 This official has other duties in addition to his responsibilities as Head of the Atomic Control Office, London.

  Atomic Control Office, Washington

  Unified Grade 6: 1

  Unified Grade 7: 1

  Executive Officer: 1

  Personal Secretary: 1

  Administrative Officer: 1

  The annual running costs of the London and Washington offices are £121,000 and £296,000 respectively.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the average annual costs of one Nimrod aircraft. [21213]
  137
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The estimated average annual cost of supporting a Nimrod MR Mk2 aircraft is some £4 million. This figure does not include fuel and aircrew costs.

  Commachio Company
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the primary roles and functions of Commachio Company, Royal Marines; and what are its annual running costs. [21210]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: Commacchio Group Royal Marines protects the nation's independent strategic nuclear deterrent on UK territory. It also administers Royal Marines Condor, Arbroath, for itself and for two other units of the Royal Marines Command. The Group's estimated annual running costs for financial year 1997–98, including Service Pay, are some £10 million.

  Nuclear Accident Response Organisation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs of the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation. [21208]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The Ministry of Defence Nuclear Accident Response Organisation (NARO) would only be activated for exercises or in the event of a defence nuclear accident, using resources from a
  number of military commands. The occasional costs attributed to the NARO function in these commands are not separately identified. The annual manpower costs for the Headquarters element in the Ministry of Defence in London, however, amounts to £300,000 and the annual cost of support contracts provided by the Meteorological Office, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and other associated costs amounts to some £2.5 million.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs of a hunter-killer nuclear powered submarine. [21206]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The annual running costs of an RN vessel depend on the activities it carries out, and the amount of maintenance it undergoes. In approximate terms, the annual running costs of a hunter-killer nuclear powered submarine are some £10 million. These costs include manpower, stores and fuel. They exclude maintenance.

  Destroyers and Minesweepers (Running Costs)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the average running costs of(a) one Royal Navy destroyer and (b) one mine countermeasure vessel. [21214]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The annual running costs of an RN vessel depends on the activities it carries out, and the amount of maintenance it undergoes. In approximate terms, the annual running costs of a Type 42 destroyer are some £12 million; and for a Sandown class MCMV some £2 million. These costs include manpower, stores and fuel. They exclude maintenance.

  Service Accommodation (Evictions)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many households on armed forces' housing estates have been served with notices of eviction in the current year; what estimate he has made of the figures for each of the next three years; and how many of these are in the categories(a) civilian and (b) irregular. [21320]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the current year, 28 Irregular Occupants have been served with eviction notices, none of whom were civilian licensees. It is not possible to predict future numbers as Irregular Occupancy arises as a result of loss of entitlement through bereavement, marital breakdown and personnel leaving the Services but remaining in their quarters. On occasion, civilian licensees may similarly refuse to leave their homes at the end of their licence periods but it is not possible to predict this eventuality. Even in such circumstances it is not always necessary to seek eviction of occupants.

  Armed Forces (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in the armed forces earn less than £4 an hour. [22640]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 19 December 1997,Official Report, columns 380–81.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the functions, bodies or units not covered by the £200 million estimated cost of dealing with the millennium computer problem in his Department and its associated public bodies; if this estimate covers the cost of dealing with the problem as it affects front-line military units; if it includes provision for dealing with the embedded chip problem; and if he will make a statement; [21541]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the moneys which will be made available to his Department from the contingency reserve to ensure millennium computer compliance in the United Kingdom armed forces; [21543]

  (3) what margin of error is associated with his Department's estimate of a £200 million total cost for resolving the millennium computer problem; and if he will make a statement; [21542]

  (4) if he will give a breakdown of the £200 million cost of resolving the millennium computer problem in his Department and related bodies to show the estimated expenditure necessary, broken down by each agency or center. [21540]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The £200 million estimated as the cost to MOD of addressing the millennium problem covers costs associated with tackling the problem in the Department and its associated public bodies. It includes dealing with the problem as it affects front line units and provision for dealing with the embedded chip problem. The figure is based on estimates associated with Year 2000 tasks which have been assessed and for which costed plans have been produced. However the number, scope and complexity of systems to be checked within Defence means that the figures are still being refined.
  139
  In estimating the costs, contingency sums are included to cover unforeseen difficulties. The margin of error included for each system will depend on its complexity and the associated risk of finding that there is more to correct than originally estimated.

  The Department's internal plans represent projections and assumptions which inform advice to Ministers on the affordability of particular parts of the Defence programme. Accordingly I am withholding information requested on the breakdown of costs associated with the millennium computer problem under exemption two of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Funds to meet the projected costs are being allocated on the assumption that no additional money will be available from the contingency reserve.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what existing problems have been encountered in(a) his Department and (b) public bodies under the responsibility of his Department and (c) the armed forces as a consequence of the millennium computer problem; and if he will make a statement; [21539]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the operational military effectiveness of the United Kingdom armed forces is likely to be impaired by the millennium computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [21544]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Millennium date change problems have already been identified and are being addressed in a number of operational and administrative computer systems across the Department, the Armed Forces and Non-Departmental Public Bodies.(NDPBs).

  Within the programme established within MOD to address the year 2000 date change problem, priority is given to the rectification of those systems which could affect safety or operational effectiveness.

  Joint Working Groups
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the projects on which his Department is working jointly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; [21825]

  (2) if he will list the joint working groups currently in operation as part of (a) the 1958 mutual defence agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for defence purposes, (b) the Polaris sales agreement and (c) the Trident sales agreement; [21822]

  (3) if he will list the projects on which his Department is working jointly with Sandia National Laboratory; [21826]

  (4) if he will list the research projects on which his Department is working jointly with Los Alamos National Laboratories. [21824]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Working Groups established under the terms of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement exchange technical information on the following subjects:

  Radiation Simulation and Kinetic Effects Technology

  Energetic Materials

  Test Monitoring

  Nuclear Materials

  140

  Warhead Electrical Components and Technologies

  Non-Nuclear Materials

  Nuclear Counter-Terrorism Technology Facilities

  Nuclear Weapons Engineering

  Nuclear Warhead Physics

  Computational Technology

  Aircraft, Missile and Space System Hardening

  Laboratory Plasma Physics

  Manufacturing Practices

  Nuclear Weapon Accident Response Technology

  Nuclear Weapon Code Development

  Nuclear Weapon Environment and Damage Effects

  With the exception of support to the UK Trident Project which is effected under the terms of the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended for Trident, there is no joint work under way on new weapons systems. There are however regular exchanges on a wide range of research and technology areas as specified above. They involve all three US National Laboratories, namely Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

  Separate arrangements are in place for exchanges under the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended for Trident. The groups concerned are the Joint Steering Task Group, supported by the Trident Joint Re-Entry Systems Working Group and the Joint Systems Performance and Assessment Group.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the annual budget for his Department's Proliferation Arms Control Unit in the last two years; [22512]

  (2) what work his Department is currently carrying out to support and implement arms control treaties in the fields of (a) chemical weapons and (b) nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement; [22516]

  (3) What work is currently being carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down to (a) support and implement the Chemical Weapons Convention and (b) support the negotiations to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention; [22548]

  (4) what work is currently being carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston to support and implement international arms control agreements and treaties; [22549]

  (5) what work is being carried out by his Department to support the negotiations to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. [22517]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Ministry of Defence and its agencies and contractors conduct a wide range of activities in support of the negotiation and implementation of international nuclear, biological and chemical arms control and non-proliferation agreements, in parallel with extensive activities in support of conventional arms control. It provides particular expertise in support of the effective verification of such arrangements.
  141
  The central division for this work is the Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat within the Defence Policy Staff. It draws on other parts of the Department as necessary, including the Defence Commitments Staff, and specialists within the Defence Intelligence Staff and the Defence scientific staffs. The division works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to develop Government Arms Control policy as a whole and routinely provides part of the UK team at international arms control negotiations and discussions. Its budget for 1995–96 was £3.362 million, and for 1996–97, £2.735 million. As well as the costs of the London-based staff, this also includes provision for the Senior Military Adviser to the UK Delegation to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe based in Vienna, and for a range of work at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down in support of the effective verification of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Outside the Department's Central Staffs, the Joint Arms Control Implementation Group, based at RAF Henlow, although mainly engaged in incoming and outgoing inspections under the CFE Treaty and Vienna Document, also provides escorts when UK defence facilities and units are inspected under the Chemical Weapons Convention. JACIG is also responsible for escorting under the INF Treaty and inspections to the former US Ground Launched Cruise Missile facilities in the UK.

  The Department and the Armed Forces also continue to provide significant support to the work of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in eliminating Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. The Director of the Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat is a member of the Special Commission.

  The Atomic Weapons Establishment has long had particular expertise in the seismic monitoring of nuclear tests, a programme costing some £1.5 million in the current financial year. Its specialist staff made a widely recognised contribution to the negotiation of an effective verification regime for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The UK's contribution to the costs of the CTBT Organisation and the establishment of the International Monitoring System—£850,000 in the current financial year—is funded from the Defence budget. The MOD also provides a specialist in the UK Mission in Vienna in support of CTBT implementation.

  CBD Porton Down provides advice and research and development on a range of Chemical and Biological arms control and export control matters, both for the MOD and other Government Departments, including for the DTI in support of national implementation of the CWC. It is recognised internationally as a leading player in development of chemical and biological verification techniques. Experts from Porton Down provide technical support to the UK delegation in Geneva in the negotiations to strengthen the BTWC. This includes acting as Friend of the Chair in some technical meetings. CBD also provides support for the UN Special Commission on Iraq, and for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), including
  142
  input to inspector training, and is preparing for nomination as an OPCW designated laboratory for sample analysis.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current annual running costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishments. [21215]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The annual running costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment are of the order of £300 million. As well as research and production, they cover such things as capital investment, site maintenance, decommissioning redundant buildings, equipment and weapons, and waste management.

HEALTH

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what sums of money, out of the totals announced in his oral statement of 12 December,Official Report, column 1330, as being allocated to mental health care, will be used for providing (a) single-sex ward areas, (b) half-spindle locks on doors and (c) moves towards safe and therapeutic environments, within NHS acute psychiatric units; [21491]

  (2) what he estimates the cost to be of providing (a) single-sex ward areas and (b) half-spindle locks on doors, in NHS acute psychiatric hospitals. [21492]

  Mr. Boateng
  Our prime concern is to ensure that the additional resources we have identified are deployed in the light of Departmental guidance, including guidance on single-sex wards and security, and in the most effective way to improve services for mentally ill people.

  Detailed decisions about the allocation of the Local Authority Partnership Fund and the National Health Service Partnership Fund have yet to be made. We expect the Independent Reference Group to offer advice about priorities for the use of both funds. There is no reason why health and local authorities should not bid for these funds to support the development of facilities, of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, if they consider them to be a priority.

  Information about the estimated costs of providing single-sex ward areas and half spindle locks on doors in NHS acute psychiatric units is not available centrally.

  Northwick Park Hospital, Kenton
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report on the care policy of Northwick Park Hospital, Kenton. [21862]

  Mr. Milburn
  We know of no reason to call for a report on the care policy of Northwick Park Hospital. If there are specific concerns about an individual's treatment, the Northwick Park Hospital and St. Mark's National Health Service Trust has a complaints procedure through which these should be addressed in the first instance. Complaints should be referred to the Chief Executive of the trust.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for operations at St. George's Hospital, Tooting on 1 December 1997. [22183]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not available. Waiting time data collected centrally give the position at the end of each quarter. The latest figures are for 30 September 1997 and show 7,087 patients awaiting admission to St. George's Group National Health Service Trust on an in-patient basis. This includes all patients waiting for admission to hospital whether it be for surgery, medical treatment, assessment, therapy or rehabilitation. The number of patients waiting for an operation cannot be identified separately.

  AIDS
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with health authorities and trusts on standards of health care for AIDS patients. [22169]

  Ms Jowell
  Earlier this year a consensus statement was published in the Lancet by The British HIV Association. This provides guidelines for antiretroviral treatment of HIV seropositive individuals, and has been widely disseminated across the country. The Department will shortly be issuing guidance to all health authorities in England on the use of the £228 million provided for HIV/AIDS treatment and care in 1998–99, which will draw attention to the publication of the guidelines, so that all health authorities are aware of them.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities and trusts are not offering the full range of treatment and drugs to AIDS patients. [22171]

  Ms Jowell
  There have been anecdotal reports but no formal evidence that health authorities and trusts are not offering the full range of treatments and drugs to AIDS patients. In recognition of the increased costs and uptake of combination drug treatments we have allocated an extra £23 million to the HIV/AIDS treatment and care budget for 1998–99. £3 million of this extra funding is to provide additional resources to the 14 health authorities with the highest caseload. The new National Health Service White Paper outlines a modernisation programme which will provide a more consistent quality of care in the future.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the relative costs of treating an AIDS patient(a) in hospital and (b) as an outpatient. [22172]

  Ms Jowell
  The relative costs of treating AIDS patients in hospital and as outpatients will vary from hospital to hospital due to a variety of factors including the choice of treatment, which is a matter for discussion between patient and doctor. The success so far of new combination drug treatments for people with HIV and AIDS is resulting in fewer patients being treated as hospital in-patients. For the longer term, we have set up an Expert Working Group to undertake a Stocktake of the HIV/AIDS treatment and care budget, its use and future distribution, taking into account the costs and benefits of combination drug treatments.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when was the most recent review of the registration and inspection of privately-run nursing homes. [22180]

  Mr. Boateng
  There was a review of the regulation and inspection of social services in 1995–96 which covered the regulation and inspection of nursing homes. It stemmed from a Government consultation document, "Moving Forward", published in October 1995, for which Mr. Tom Burgner acted as independent assessor of consultation responses. The report following the review, "The Regulation and Inspection of Social Services" (commonly known as the Burgner Report) was published in October 1996. Copies of both "Moving Forward" and the Burgner Report are available in the Library.

  We are committed to creating independent regulatory arrangements for residential care and nursing homes which are tough, transparent and accountable. We intend to publish a White Paper next year setting out our proposals.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he has received from the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation regarding the possibility of cross-species viral transfer as a result of xenotransplantation; [22612]

  (2) what advice he has received from the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation regarding clinical trials involving genetic material from pigs. [22611]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation completed its work in August 1986. Its advice is contained in its Report "Animal Tissue into Humans" which was published in January 1997. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposals in the white paper on Freedom of Information on the modus operandi of(a) the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority and (b) the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. [22633]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have recently published a White Paper "Your Right to Know: Freedom of Information" setting out our proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. These proposals will be discussed by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority and appropriate action taken. The Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation completed its work in August 1996 and no longer exists.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Members of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, indicating(a) the date on which each membership commenced, (b) those members who are employed or have been employed by companies with interests in biotechnology and (c) those members who, either individually or on behalf of groups, are known to be opposed to xenotransplantation on ethical grounds. [22629]
  145
  Mr. Boateng
  The joint Department of Health/Health and Safety Executive Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) was reconstituted in January 1995 for a three-year term (subsequently extended for a further 10 months). All current members, except for the two indicated, have served on the ACDP for the full term since January 1995. The members are:

  Chairman

  Dr. M. J. Crumpton: Served as Chairman since 1991

  Export members

  Dr. B. Bannister: Member since 1993

  Professor G. E. Griffin: Appointed December 1994

  Professor D. J. Jeffries: Member since 1993

  Dr. E. A. Gould: Member since 1991

  Dr. P. W. Jones: Appointed December 1994

  Dr. H. S. Tranter: Appointed December 1994

  Dr. R. W. A. Girdwood: Appointed December 1994

  Dr. T. D. Wyatt: Member since 1987

  Employer/employee representatives

  Mr. A. R. Clare: Member since 1984

  Miss A. M. Harris: Member since January 1984

  Ms V. Bevan: Member since May 1994

  Dr. R. C. Slade: Appointed December 1994

  Dr. R. Owen: Member since 1981

  Mr. P. Taylor: Re-joined ACDP November 1996, served previously 1986–1990

  Ms P. Smith: Appointed November 1996

  Mrs. T. McGuire: Appointed December 1994

  Of the expert members Dr. Bannister, Professor Griffin, Professor Jeffries, Dr. Girdwood and Dr. Wyatt are employed within the health service. Dr. Gould is an Assistant Director at the National Environment Research Council Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology. Dr. Jones is the head of the Division of Environmental Microbiology at the Institute for Animal Health. Dr. Tranter is a microbiologist at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  In line with the tripartite principle of all Health and Safety Commission Advisory Committees, employer and employee representatives were nominated by the Confederation of British Industry, The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) Board, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, the Trades Union Congress and the Royal College of Nursing. Mr. Clare is under contract to his former employer, SmithKline Beecham and Miss Harris is the Medical Affairs Manager at Glaxo Research and Development Ltd. Ms Bevan is head of PHLS Technical Services. Dr. Slade is Safety Advisor at King's College London. Dr. Owen is now retired; he was the former Deputy Director of Medical Services at the Health and Safety Executive. Mr. Taylor, Ms Smith and Mrs McGuire all work within the health service.

  We shall write to the hon. Member with further details of the commercial and non-commercial interests of the Chairman and members.

  The ACDP is concerned with formulating advice on the infection risks of xenotransplantation. They have not been required to provide advice on ethical issues, and their personal views are not known.
  146
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 652, when the invitation to visit Imutran's animal facilities was received by his Department; and on which date the visit occurred. [22636]

  Mr. Boateng
  My noble Friend, The Baroness Jay, Minister of State, who has responsibility for this area, at Imutran's invitation, visited their facilities on 17 October 1997. During her visit she was advised of the developments in their work. The invitation was oral and the proposed itinerary was faxed to the Department on 10 September 1997.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those companies and other organisations from whom his Department has formally sought views in respect of the development of a regulatory structure for xenotransplantation, indicating in each case the date on which views were formally sought. [22609]

  Mr. Boateng
  An open consultation was held in January 1997 to which industry and others responded. The responses have been considered in depth by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority and advice submitted to Ministers. Copies of all those responses, other than those made in confidence, will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which animals he plans to exclude, on ethical grounds, from use as source animals for xenotransplantation; and if he will make a sttaement; [22628]

  (2) if he will list those studies which he has evaluated regarding the transfer of pig viruses into human cells through the process of xenotransplantation; and if he will make a statement; [22610]

  (3) if the government will make it their policy to prohibit clinical trials of xenotransplantation involving genetic material from pigs until further data have been collected on cross-species viral transfer; and if he will make a statement. [22607]

  Mr. Boateng
  Proposals for the use of any animal in xenotransplantation will be carefully considered by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA).

  The Government are advised by the UKXIRA on the acceptability of any application to undertake trials in xenotransplantation involving humans. The UKXIRA's advice will include consideration of issues such as the microbiological risk of any proposed procedure, the use of the animal proposed as the source, and the likely effect on the patient and their relatives. Within the UK we will allow clinical trials involving humans to take place only if and when we are satisfied that the risks associated with such procedures are acceptable. The UKXIRA will take the latest published information and other evidence offered into account in its advice.

  The Home Office has responsibility for the use of animals in scientific procedures and their view on the acceptability of the use of any animal as a source will depend on a consideration of the harm of the procedure against the benefit it may bring. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office, however, has indicated that he is not prepared to sanction the use of Great Apes for use in scientific procedures.
  147
  Research continues into the science underlying xenotransplant developments, including cross-species viral transfer. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also working with the UKXIRA on microbiological issues involved in xenotransplantation.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into sudden death in epilepsy; what directions have been issued to health authorities and trusts concerning sudden death in epilepsy; and if he will make a statement.[22484]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) funds around £600,000 of general epilepsy research. There is no research currently being undertaken which is specifically and exclusively into sudden death in epilepsy. However, the MRC multicentre study of early epilepsy and single seizures is looking at immediate versus deferred drug therapy in patients with recently diagnosed single seizures. A number of different outcomes are being examined, including death, and prognostic factors for these are being determined.

  The Department issued an Executive Letter (95)120 "A Positive Approach to Epilepsy" to all health authorities and trusts in January 1996 asking the National Health Service to work towards best practice in commissioning, contracting and service delivery for epilepsy. The Epilepsy Task Force's "Specification for Epilepsy Services" was enclosed with the EL which made specific recommendations to improve and prioritise epilepsy services, including reducing morbidity and preventing avoidable mortality.

  The Department is working closely with other government departments to increase cooperation on epilepsy and encourage initiatives in other areas such as education and employment.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the estimated(a) over and (b) under spend for each quarter of 1997–98 in respect of the NHS dental budget. [22561]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no fixed allocation for expenditure in the General Dental Service (GDS). Expenditure is affected by a number of factors including patient charge contribution. GDS expenditure, net of patient charges, for the two quarters of 1997–98 for which figures are available are as follows:

  Net GDS expenditure—England

  1997–98

  £ million

  April to June

  237.5

  July to September

  236.5

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the current cost of introducing free dental preliminary examinations in the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to bring forward proposals to that end. [22769]
  148
  Mr. Milburn
  The annual cost of abolishing charges for dental examinations in the United Kingdom based on December 1997 costs, would be about £75 million. This makes no allowance for any resulting increase in the number of examinations or in the amount of treatment provided.

  Dental charges are being examined as part of the comprehensive spending review, which is looking at all aspects of the Department's spending in the context of the Government's election manifesto commitment
  "if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your general practitioner happens to be or on where you live".

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made for emergency dental treatment for those who are deregistered following the change of period for continuing care payments. [22768]

  Mr. Milburn
  Patients are not being deregistered by this change. The registration period for both adult continuing care and child capitation payments was harmonised at fifteen months with effect from 1 September 1996. Regular attenders will be unaffected by the change as their registration period will roll forward when they attend their dentist. The registration of those patients who have not attended the dentist for fifteen months will lapse.

  Dentists are free to re-register any patients whose registrations have lapsed. It is for dentists to decide whether they wish to accept any patient onto their list.

  Dentists can treat any patient as an occasional patient for emergency care. Health authorities may also make arrangements for dental treatment of patients in urgent cases, when dentists in their area are not normally available to provide treatment.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study to evaluate the costs per item of treatment carried out by(a) community dentists and (b) general dental practitioners. [22770]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to do so. The General Dental Service (GDS) and the Community Dental Service are complementary services and are not directly comparable. The fees paid for each item of service in the GDS is set out in the Statement of Dental Remuneration, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current studies he has commissioned to analyse the benefits of preventative dentistry. [22771]

  Mr. Milburn
  We monitor the combined effect of preventative and restorative dentistry through regular surveys of adult and child dental health. The next survey of adults is due to take place this year and of children in 2003.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to his Department of continuing care payments for dentists in each financial year since the scheme was initiated; and what estimate he has made of the comparable cost had the payments been made on a 15–month basis. [22767]
  149
  Mr. Milburn
  In October 1990 the new dental contract was introduced. From this date, general dental service dentists received continuing care payments for adult patients who were registered with them for National Health Service treatment. The cost of payments made in respect of continuing care for the financial years 1990–91 to 1996–97 in England is set out in the table. Expenditure in 1990–91 and 1991–92 reflects the introduction of the new contract and is therefore not comparable to later years. No estimate has been made of the comparable cost had payments been made on a 15-month basis.

  General dental service: Cost of continuing care payments1 for year
  ending 1990–91 to 1996–97

  England

  Year

  Continuing care cost (£)

  1990–912

  13,921,120

  1991–92

  89,639,544

  1992–93

  109,105,816

  1993–94

  105,616,458

  1994–95

  108,162,318

  1995–96

  107,429,935

  1996–97

  108,170,299

  1 Continuing care payments were introduced in October 1990 with the introduction of the new dental contract.

  2 Figure is for six months from October 1990.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the sums allocated to the remuneration of general dental practitioners are cash limited. [22774]

  Mr. Milburn
  No. Neither health authorities nor individual general dental practitioners are subject to fixed budgets for general dental services.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to recognise the GDPA for purposes of negotiation. [22772]

  Mr. Milburn
  None. The General Dental Services Committee is the organisation recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as being representative of the dental profession for the purposes of consultation on the general dental services.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the rises in real terms in NHS payments to general dental practitioners in the last five years; and how these have compared with(a) the retail prices index and (b) real rises in income for non-manual workers. [22773]

  Mr. Milburn
  Gross expenditure in the General Dental Service in England was £1245.97 million in 1991–92 and £1323.07 million in 1996–97, a rise of 6.2 per cent. in the five year period. In real terms, when compared to the GDP deflator, gross expenditure fell by 7.6 per cent.

  Changes in gross expenditure cannot be compared directly with the retail prices index and the income for non-manual workers. Gross expenditure includes not only income for general dental practitioners but also payments to meet practice expenses and additional payments such as maternity allowance, sick pay, seniority payments etc. Levels of expenditure are also linked to the volume of National Health Service dental services provided by dentists.

  Dentists working not less than 2 days per week in the GDS, had average earnings of about £50,000 per annum from the NHS in 1996–97, after expenses.
  150
  Information on the rise in the retail price index and the earnings of non-manual employees at April each year as reported in the "New Earnings Survey 1997" (Table 30) is available in the Library.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the registration period for NHS dental treatment to 24 months from the end of the month in which the patient last visited his or her dentist. [22283]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulation 1996 SI 1996/2051, which implemented the changes to the registration period, were laid before Parliament on 6 August 1996, and came into force on 1 September 1996.

  We have no plans to review this policy, which will improve value for money by focusing payments to dentists on those patients receiving active care from them.

  Any savings generated will be put back into the General Dental Service, in a targeted way to achieve better oral health for the population.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average waiting times for treatment(a) at the Westmorland General Hospital and (b) in the Morecambe Bay Health Authority area in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [21958]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information is given in the table. This shows average waiting times for all waiting list admissions to hospital during the years concerned.

  Average waiting times (days) for admission to hospital on either an ordinary or day case basis during:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Westmorland Hospital NHS Trust

  85.0

  81.0

  Morecambe Bay Health Authority

  131.3

  100.0

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  Insulin Pen Injector Needles
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make insulin pen injector needles available on prescription for diabetics. [22487]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) on 17 June 1997,Official Report, column 102.

  Suffolk Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the introduction into the capitation formula this year of a needs weighting for(a) services for people with learning disabilities and (b) administration and other hospital services has had on the Government's health spending allocation to the Suffolk Health Authority for 1998–99. [22483]

  Mr. Milburn
  The aim of the weighted capitation formula is to determine health authorities' fair shares of available resources by setting targets. The formula does not directly determine allocations. Allocations reflect our
  151
  decisions on the speed at which health authorities are brought nearer to target through the distribution of growth.

  For 1998–99 the formula has been made fairer by the introduction of two new needs weightings. Relative to other health authorities, the introduction of an administration and other hospital services weighting has reduced Suffolk Health Authority's target share by £2,975,000 (1.14 per cent.); and the introduction of a weighting for people with learning disabilities has reduced Suffolk Health Aurhtority's target share by £3,742,000 (1.44 per cent.).

  Genetic Engineering
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) date of appointment, (b) terms of reference and (c) membership of the focus groups established by his Department to discuss genetic engineering. [22599]

  Ms Jowell
  There are no specific focus groups established by the Department to discuss genetic engineering. However, the Department provides the Secretariat for the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC) which was set up in 1993, and is chaired by Professor Norman Nevin (Professor of Medical Genetics) from Belfast City Hospital.

  GTAC members are:

  Professor E. Anionwu—Thames Valley University

  Mrs. R. Barnes—Cystic Fibrosis Trust

  Professor J. Burn—Royal Victoria Infirmary

  Professor A. Dayan—St. Bartholomew's Hospital

  Revd. Dr. K. Denison—Church in Wales

  Dr. B. Gibson—Hospital for Sick Children

  Professor I. Hart—St. Thomas" Hospital

  Mrs. A. Hunt—Genetic Interest Group

  Professor P. Johnston—Belfast City Hospital

  Professor T. Marteau—Guy's Hospital

  Professor J. Neil—University of Glasgow.

  Professor A. Pinching—St. Bartholomew"s Hospital

  Miss E. Platt QC—Lawyer

  Sir B. Richards—Peptide Therapeutics Group plc

  Professor M. Steel—University of St. Andrew"s

  Mrs. I Train—Nurse

  GTAC advises on the ethical acceptability of proposals for gene therapy research in humans.

  The Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC), chaired by Professor Sir Colin Campbell (Vice Chancellor, University of Nottingham), was set up in 1996 and reports to health and industry Ministers.

  HGAC members are:

  Professor C. Aitken—Emeritus Professor, University of Edinburgh

  Dr. M. Aldred—Retinoblastoma Society

  Professor M. Bobrow—University of Cambridge

  Mrs. D. Littlejohn—Central Office of Industrial Tribunals, Scotland

  Professor N. Nevin—Chair GTAC

  Dr. O. O'Neill—Chair Nuffield Council on Bioethics

  152

  Revd. Dr. J. Polkinghorne—Chair Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing

  Dr. G. Poste—SmithKline Beecham

  Ms M. Stuart—British Broadcasting Corporation

  HGAC has a remit to keep under review scientific progress at the frontiers of human genetics and related fields.

  Adhesive Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of adhesive arachnoiditis have been diagnosed in the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [21960]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available centrally. Statistics held by the Department of Health reflect only diagnostic information collected on in-patients attending National Health Service hospitals in England. The diagnostic information is held in the form of codes from the World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases, which is ordered by the cause of disease. In this classification, arachnoiditis is not directly used as a term because it is a symptom, not a cause. The Department cannot determine the prevalence of incidence of arachnoiditis from the statistics collected centrally.

  Lady Helen Gardiner
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter of 14 December from the Minister of State, if he will set out the considerations which led him to conclude that Lady Helen Gardiner should not be reappointed as Chairman of the Surrey Ambulance Service NHS Trust. [22216]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to Lady Helen inviting her to serve until the end of September as chair of the Surrey Ambulance Trust. Lady Helen has already indicated her willingness to accept the appointment.

  Read Codes Version 3
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the length of time required to produce a service-strength product of Read Codes Version 3; and if he will make a statement. [22404]

  Mr. Milburn
  The release of Read Codes Version 3 planned for March 1998 will contain all codes and terms from earlier Read Versions. This is the service strength product, which will enable Read Codes Version 3 to be used in both the Acute and General Practice sectors.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) NHS sites participating in the Read Codes Version 3 partnership programme, (b) NHS sites which have ceased participation in the programme, (c) non-partnership NHS sites currently using Version 3 and (d) non-partnership NHS sites which have ceased to use Version 3; and, for categories (a) and (c), to what extent Version 3 is in use on those sites. [22407]
  153
  Mr. Milburn
  To avoid being overwhelmed by inquiries from other hospitals, hospitals participating in the partnership programme have asked that their names should not be placed in the public domain. Accordingly, we shall provide a personal response to the hon. Member dealing with his first two points.

  The information to answer the remaining points is not held centrally.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each evaluation(a) conducted or (b) commissioned by his Department into the efficacy of the Read Codes Version 3 coding system, stating the date and author or body responsible for each one; and if he will place the evaluation reports in the Library. [22408]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Read Codes Version 3 partnership programme started in mid 1995 and was designed to identify, from its operational use, what additional terms might need to be added to Version 3, such as those describing new clinical practices and procedures. Evaluation of the benefits from using Read Codes is part of this programme, which will finish in March 1998. No further evaluations are planned.

  Within the partnership programme, one of the main sites for evaluating Version 3 of the Read Codes is the Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS Trust. Two draft reports on its use of Read Codes Version 3 for clinical coding purposes have been published recently. One is an internal report produced by the trust itself; the other is the result of both external and internal evaluations. Copies of these two draft reports will be placed in the Library as will copies of the final reports when published.

  NHS Wages
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees earn less than £4 an hour. [22641]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is not available centrally following a decision made during the previous Government to discontinue the collection of detailed earnings information.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek exemptions from the minimum wage for description of persons working in the NHS. [22654]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health is contributing to the Government's evidence to the Low Pay Commission. There are no plans to seek specific exemptions from the minimum wage for descriptions of persons working in the National Health Service.

  NHS (Suffolk)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter of the hon. Member for South Suffolk of 20 November with respect to the NHS in Suffolk. [22291]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have written to the hon. Member today.

  Condom Machines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require that condom machines in entertainment venues and public lavatories stock only products approved to British kite mark standards; and if he will make a statement. [12915]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 27 October 1997, Official Report column 767.

  There is no general power which would enable me to require this. However, local authority Trading Standards Officers could take action under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 if the product could be deemed unsafe under the regulations.

  Community Nurses
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of community nurses in English health authorities in each year since 1979 for which figures are available. [15656]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: The information requested is available from 1982 and is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) average number of community health nurses per health authority in England; as at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  Community Health nurses

  Number of Health Authorities

  Average number of Community Health Nurses Nurses

  1982

  40,440

  191

  210

  1983

  41,230

  191

  220

  1984

  41,420

  191

  220

  1985

  43,050

  191

  230

  1986

  42,560

  191

  220

  1987

  42,230

  191

  220

  1988

  42,470

  192

  220

  1989

  41,410

  190

  220

  1990

  44,000

  190

  230

  1991

  44,540

  184

  240

  1992

  43,910

  178

  250

  1993

  43,850

  145

  300

  1994

  43,090

  117

  370

  1995

  53,260

  105

  510

  1996

  56,560

  100

  570

  Notes:

  1. Figures are not available before 1982.

  2. Figures for 1982 to 1989 are for "primary healthcare" nursing and midwifery staff, including: health visitors, district nurses, school nurses, community midwives and a small number of other "primary healthcare" nursing and midwifery staff. The figures for 1990 to 1994 cover the same staff groups as for 1982 to 1989, but include community psychiatric nurses and community learning difficulties nurses, and exclude community midwives. The figures for 1995 to 1996 are based on new occupation codes and are not, therefore. directly comparable with figures for earlier years although they cover similar groups to those used in 1990 to 1994.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual non-medical workforce census.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the guidance given to regional chairmen in June on NHS board appointments. [21909]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: We wrote to Regional Chairmen on 23 June signalling a raft of changes that we had decided should be made to the appointments process. They were as follows:
  the person specification for non-executives and chairmen to be changed to encourage more National Health Service users and carers as their community representatives on NHS boards;
  156
  interview panels to ensure that all candidates were personally committed to the NHS and would bring a user's perspective to the board;
  local authorities and Members of Parliament to be invited to nominate candidates. All nominees to go through the usual selection process and be judged on merit;
  the balance of board membership to be changed, shifting more towards users and carers and others with a community voice; and
  all candidates, including those nominated by MPs and local authorities, those already on a database, new self-nominees and serving board members seeking reappointment to be considered against the new criteria for the vacancies available.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

NHS Trusts: Appointments
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether all vacancies arising on or before 30th November 1997 for chairmen and non-executives of NHS trusts have now been filled; what is the number of local authority members appointed in each category; and what is the longest period for any of these vacancies and for vacancies for regional chairman since the general election.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the noble Baroness asked several related questions and I must ask her and the House to forgive me if my reply is slightly longer than I would normally prefer. A total of 1,070 appointments were due to be made to National Health Service trusts by 30th November last year. Of those, 300 have still to be confirmed. The longest vacancies were for seven months. Clearly, that is more than we expected by this time. I have looked into the remaining vacancies. There are several different causes which I can detail if the noble Baroness wishes.
As the House knows, the Government are determined that membership of NHS boards should be more representative of the communities they serve. To help achieve that, every MP and local councillor was invited to nominate people to serve. I am glad to say that, as a result, of those appointed 17 chairmen and 140 non-executives declared that they took part in elections in the past five years. That will be particularly important in breaking down the barriers between health and other local social services.
In relation to regional chairmen, the chairmanship of the Northern and Yorkshire Region was vacant for four months. A careful recruitment process during that period led to the appointment of Mrs. Zahida Manzoor, an extremely able woman of Asian background with long experience in the health service. We are extremely confident that she and all the other people appointed to trust positions are the right people to develop our policy on the new NHS.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that the interviews and all necessary documentation to replace the non-executive directors of the Royal Free, of which I was chairman until 30th November, were completed by 10th October? At least six candidates were chosen as appointable out of the 63 who applied. I emphasise that the panel was fully independent with one member from
834
the Government Benches in this House serving as one of the three along with myself and an independent trust chairman. How is it therefore that those appointments still have not been made? Does the Minister think it fair that those extremely able people who were recommended for appointment should still be unappointed 13 weeks later? Also, does she think it fair that the four remaining non-executive directors should carry the heavy workload associated with a major trust hospital when they are already overworked in attempting to chair committees? It is unreasonable that the two places, which represent two out of six, should be left vacant for so long.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am second to no one, certainly not the noble Baroness, in thanking and respecting those who take on the enormous burden of being members of NHS trust boards. The noble Baroness chaired a large trust board for a long period. As she will know from long experience in the health service, the recommendations that she and other members of her panel made locally would have gone to the regional chairman. They would then come to the Department of Health. Unfortunately, it is not a region where I am specifically involved and I cannot therefore give details of the background of the appointments. As the noble Baroness will be aware, they are in the hands of the regional chairman.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I wish to congratulate the relevant Minister on appointing Professor Hamden, a former director of research at the Christie Cancer Hospital, as chairman of the South Manchester Health Trust, and for appointing Mr. Egerton, who lives in the area and who is a former councillor with distinguished local service, as chairman of the North Manchester Health Trust? We are extremely pleased with those two appointments.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. As the House knows, the Government paid special attention in those cases to appointing people with local experience and a demonstrated commitment to the National Health Service.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is it the case that those appointments were referred either in whole or in part to 10 Downing Street? If so, does the Minister agree that that is a degree of centralisation which has had an unhappy effect in leading to some boards acting illegally or, at any rate, in an inquorate manner?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have no knowledge of any appointments being referred to 10 Downing Street. As I said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, we divided ministerial responsibilities for the appointments by region. That is why I could not give a specific answer in relation to North Thames. As far as I am aware, no ministerial

835
appointments have been recommended in that way. I can also state categorically that no boards have been inquorate.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am led to understand that one vacancy on an NHS trust has not yet been filled. I refer to the vacancy created on the appointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to the Government in May. Is that correct?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is one of the appointments which is outstanding.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that these matters are with the regional chairmen. Will she accept from me that the regional authority stated that it had passed everything on to the department in October while I was still in office and that it did not consider any delay was caused by the region?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said. Not having detailed knowledge of the individual appointments to the North Thames region, I can only express what I said originally. The process goes through the regions and then on to the Department of Health.

European Air Traffic Control System
2.44 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the present European air traffic control system, and in particular the controllers, can cope with the expected rise in air traffic; and whether the necessary funding is in place to secure adequate technology to cope with future demands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, individual states are responsible for providing air traffic control services within their air space. To accommodate traffic growth, a European programme to harmonise and improve air traffic management has been adopted and centralised flow management introduced. The latter evens out the traffic flow over Europe and prevents controller overload. The 27 member states of Eurocontrol, including the UK, are expected to invest some 3 billion ecus in their air traffic systems over the next five years.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and in advance of my Question on Wednesday, I declare an interest in that I am president of the Air Safety Group. I thank the noble Baroness for her encouraging Answer. Can she say whether any valuable lessons have been learnt following the unfortunate spate of near misses when airliners have nearly collided?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is important that we learn from any "airprox" incidents or near misses. All
836
possible steps are being taken to prevent such incidents; but human error cannot be eradicated completely. In this respect, fitting the traffic collision avoidance system in aircraft, compulsory in Europe for large passenger aircraft by 1st January 2000, will produce a valuable additional safety tool.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister say where the necessary funding for National Air Traffic Services will come from? Will National Air Traffic Services be privatised or not; and if not, how will the funding come from the public sector borrowing requirement?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Front Bench, although I think it is somewhat selfless of me to do so given his long experience as a transport Minister. As far as concerns the future of National Air Traffic Services, the Government are considering a range of options for the future institutional structure. However, I should say that, whether NATS remains in the public sector or is privatised, safety will be the paramount consideration. We would not contemplate any change to NATS' status if we had any doubt over future safety standards. There is planned investment of some £800 million over the next decade. This will require a capital spend of about £100 million per annum. The department is working with the CAA and Her Majesty's Treasury to examine ways in which the CAA and NATS might be allowed a more flexible approach to raising capital than is possible at present. It is, of course, open to NATS and other public bodies to look to public/private partnerships for investment. The new Scottish air traffic control centre is being progressed in that way.

Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton
2.47 p.m.
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord a full reply to his Question today. As I think he knows, plans for service changes at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, are currently subject to formal consultation by Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth and Kingston and Richmond Health Authorities. If this consultation does not result in local resolution, the plans will almost certainly be referred to Ministers. Therefore, it is inappropriate to comment before the process is complete. I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to learn that just before Christmas the Government announced the allocation of £6 million of special assistance funding to the South West London Health Authority. This is to ensure that hospital services in the local area can be sustained while the health authorities consult on the longer term future of services at Queen Mary's.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful reply. I understand that Queen

837
Mary's is losing accreditation for training junior doctors. Does she not feel that will have an adverse effect on the hospital? I am well aware that it is not the most modern hospital but it is a famous and friendly one and is much loved by the local people. I am a graduate of it who walked out.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord did not walk out because he felt that the accreditation was insufficient. As he will be aware from his involvement with the hospital, there have been longstanding concerns about clinical safety at Queen Mary's. In April 1996 the royal colleges of general surgery and orthopaedics indicated that they no longer considered services at Queen Mary's to be clinically sustainable. The hospital also lost doctor training accreditation for surgery, paediatrics, emergency services and children's services in April 1997 and accreditation for A & E in August 1997. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured, however, that, with regard to any decision which Ministers finally take about the future of the hospital, we will want to be fully satisfied that it is in the interests of local people.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when may we expect to see the results of the team which is reviewing hospitals in the London area? That, after all, is the context in which decisions about Queen Mary's should be based. The noble Baroness will be aware that the various problems around Queen Mary's are leading to what has been described to me as a haemorrhaging of staff, which is a very unhappy situation. Secondly, and quite separately, can she give assurances as to the capital funding for the scheme which the health authorities are proposing? Their own consultation document indicates a shortfall of almost £30 million.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As 1 said in an earlier reply, I hope she will understand that because of the present statutory situation I cannot comment in any detail on potential future plans for the hospital. I can assure her that, as I said, we are making every effort to ensure that services are maintained in this very difficult period, which I recognise has led to the loss of some staff in this particular area. That is a problem. As I said in my initial reply, we are very concerned about the issue of clinical quality and the problem that may result in the long term.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when the results will be ready?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am so sorry, but I genuinely forgot. The report is imminent. But there is a separate report on services at Queen Mary's. That is out to consultation until the end of January. That must be considered separately. I believe that the final date for consultation is 26th January.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what has been the average annual input of patients to Queen Mary's Hospital in
838
recent years? Under the present plans, can the Minister say what percentage of them will have to look elsewhere in future?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that one of the problems at Queen Mary's has been what is technically called the "case mix". That refers to people who have come in for acute care and where all the concerns that I have previously illustrated are very high. There is a very large input of elderly patients looking for more basic community care. That is the highest proportion. I believe that under any suggested plans that will continue to be the greatest number of patients to be looked after by this hospital.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, perhaps I may declare a personal interest in asking this question. For the past few years a close member of my family has been receiving the most expert and dedicated treatment at Queen Mary's Hospital. Can the Minister explain why the decisions that led to the withdrawal from that hospital of the in-patient beds, the maternity unit, the paediatric beds and the accident and emergency unit were taken before the results of the so-called South Western Review were known? Can the Minister say whether those responsible for the review—or the royal colleges whose withdrawal of accreditation led, I believe, directly to the removal of the accident and emergency unit—undertook any examination of the health needs of the people now being served by Queen Mary's Hospital or indeed carried out any proper consultation with them?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord's relative has been so well looked after. Perhaps I may make it clear that the royal colleges are not deciding the future of the hospital. The Specialist Training Authority—the so-called STA—is legally responsible for approving hospital posts for training purposes and for safeguarding standards of postgraduate medical training. The royal colleges advise the STA and do work on its behalf, but the decisions rest with the STA. We believe that this is an important guarantee of consistency and excellence across a large number of medical specialties. We do not wish to see doctors trained in environments where they cannot benefit from the full range of experience or supervision. We view the decision of the royal colleges to remove these accreditations that I outlined in my original answer, as a key indicator of the clinical quality which, as noble Lords will know from our White Paper, is something that we want to stress in the organisation and the management of the NHS.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, when the Minister says that the London review is to be reported imminently, is that a matter of weeks or months?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords. I hazard a guess and say weeks.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the fact that the London review panel

839
reported at the end of October? In following up the answer in which the Minister referred to "weeks", that means that the Government will have had about three months in which to decide on the recommendations. Can she explain what is causing the delay since the panel was extremely eminent and did its researches very thoroughly? Perhaps I may declare an interest in the future of Bart's Hospital.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the panel was extremely distinguished and did its work very thoroughly. The detail of when it completed its work is something that we do not need to discuss. Some of it was conducted privately and some publicly. I believe that the discussion this afternoon about the details of the alteration of services at one hospital trust alone illustrates the complexities of the issues that are being looked at in the London review. It explains why Ministers and the regional organisations have wanted to look very carefully at the proposals which have been made.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a real fear locally that Queen Mary's Hospital is being allowed to wither away to nothing before that process can be halted? Will she convey to her right honourable friend the concerns that have been expressed on this matter and ask him to make it clear that the hospital will not be allowed to close without the Government fulfilling their pledge before the election that where closure of a hospital is suggested, a public local hearing should be held to give the local community the opportunity to cross-examine those putting forward such a proposal?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend a sense of urgency about this decision. As I said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we expect the consultation period on this decision to be completed by the end of January. By then we will have had a very full and fair discussion of these issues at local level. From the interest which a number of noble Lords have taken in this matter, including my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, who has kept me well up to speed on this, I am aware of the degree of local concern, local involvement and discussion. As I said in answer to a previous question, we shall not make any decisions which are not in the interests of local people.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Queen Mary's is an internationally renowned hospital especially for the limbless? As a number of people are coming here from the Middle East hoping to get new limbs, I hope that they will be treated at Queen Mary's.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to the very specialist service which the hospital fulfils. As I am sure she will be aware, one of the proposals in the
840
hospital review which is now out for consultation is that the limb-fitting and specialist rehabilitation service should be retained at that hospital. As I said to several other Members of your Lordships' House, this is now subject to formal consultation.

Trusts and Political Funding
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many trusts which contributed to the political funding of the Labour Party are in existence and what has been the extent of the contribution.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Question appears to seek information regarding past donations to the Labour Party. I am surprised that it has been directed at Her Majesty's Government. As a courtesy to the House. however, I am happy to repeat the information which I have already given to the noble Lord in reply to a Written Question from him on 11th December 1997 on a related, but not identical, topic.
As the House is aware, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, to undertake a wide-ranging review of party funding. The Prime Minister has proposed to the leaders of other political parties that all parties agree to making available in confidence to the Neill Committee the details of all donations to party funds since 1992. On this basis, I am informed that the Labour Party would be prepared to ask the trustees to include donations to blind trusts in this evidence. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has indicated his willingness to consider this approach. It is for the leaders of other political parties to respond. I understand that the leaders of the main political parties have agreed to provide to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, information which he has requested to enable him to begin his investigations. That does not include the name of donors.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that because there was no effective reply to my Written Question I tabled this Question? Is he also aware that this and the previous questions were in no way concerned with any other political party than the Labour Party, which is now in government? Is the Minister further aware that, in view of the assurances that he gave your Lordships at Question Time on 13th November as to full disclosure, it would have been preferable for me to have been able to thank him for answering the Question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that there has been no effective reply. I have set out the basis on which the Labour Party—and, as far as I know, only the Labour Party—is prepared to give the answers to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, which would give a response to the noble Lord's Question. If the noble Lord wants me to

841
go further and to give a precise but more limited Answer and I consider that courtesy to this House requires me to answer the Question in the round, my Answer is that Mrs. Margaret Beckett still has a blind fund; that that blind trust is used only for the purpose of remunerating a member of staff; that the money from that blind trust goes to the Fees Office and not to Mrs. Beckett personally, so she derives no personal benefit from it; and that she has indicated clearly and in public that if the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, decides that such a trust should be wound up, she is prepared to do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it is grossly impertinent for a member of the Conservative Party to ask such a Question when over the years it has assiduously concealed the donations that it has received? Does the noble Lord also agree that it is a pity that the names of donors from foreign countries are not to be revealed in the inquiry so that the names of all those living abroad who have contributed millions of pounds to the Tory Party could be made known to the public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have refrained from making that kind of point although I have been gravely tempted to do so. The terms of reference which the Prime Minister has given to the noble Lord. Lord Neill. are very wide-ranging. They include the question of foreign contributions. I note that, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly says, the Conservative Party has refused to give any information about either foreign or domestic donations. I note that the information which the noble Lord, Lord Neill, now requires in order to start his investigation, which the Conservative Party has, of course, agreed to give, gives the numbers of donors in bands as opposed to giving the actual amounts, names or the origin of the donation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, may I remind the noble Lord that the Question—may I also ask him to answer it—asks "how many trusts" and the "extent of the contribution"? If the noble Lord declines to answer it, that is his privilege; but it is my privilege to ask.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already answered that there is one trust and one trust only in existence. I have already told the noble Lord and the House that the Labour Party and only the Labour Party is prepared to give information on the extent of contributions—in the first instance, in confidence to the noble Lord, Lord Neill. I suggest that in future the noble Lord addresses his questions to his own Front Bench.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I listened to the first part of his Answer with some concern? He gave the impression that he was doing the House a favour by answering this Question. It is not a favour. As a member of the Government, the noble Lord is obliged to answer. If a Question has been admitted to the Order Paper, it is our right, as a House, to be able to listen to a Minister's answers. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could put that straight.
842
Perhaps the Minister will also reconfirm what I understood him to say: that no blind trusts are currently in existence since they have all been closed down since the general election, apart from one, but that a senior Cabinet Minister is still receiving funds from a blind trust in order to employ somebody in her office? Can the noble Lord advise the House what that person does and his or her obligations to the donors of the blind trust?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already given as full an answer as it is physically possible for me to give. Although the noble Lord is, of course, right that a Question on the Order Paper has to be answered, there are rules protecting the impartiality of the Civil Service, and because of those rules it has not been possible for me to obtain briefing from civil servants on large aspects of the Answer to this Question; I have had to go to the Labour Party and to special advisers for my briefing material. Therefore, when I said in an answer that it was a courtesy to the House, I do not think that that is an inaccurate description of the situation in which I find myself and in which the House now finds itself. I should be interested to learn on how many occasions members of the Conservative Government answered questions about the funding of the Conservative Party as openly as I have answered this Question. That issue has always been plunged in the deepest darkness. The noble Lord asked me about what that member of Mrs. Beckett's staff does. I do not know, but I shall certainly find out and write to the noble Lord.

Petroleum Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Consolidation Bill which brings together a number of enactments on petroleum. It deals with rights and licences to search for and get petroleum; the application of criminal and civil law to offshore activities; authorisations for submarine pipelines; and the decommissioning of these pipelines and offshore installations. The Bill has been the subject of consultation by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
The main Acts which are consolidated are the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934; the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act 1975; the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982; and the Petroleum Act 1987, Parts I and II.
In the past, some model clauses for petroleum licences have been included in primary legislation. Although they were originally contained in regulations, it was considered that amendments to model clauses which were to apply to existing licences should be made by primary legislation. As a result, well over 100 pages of schedules to the 1975 Act and other Acts consist of amended model clauses. The Bill will enable all model clauses to be placed again in secondary legislation. where they originally belonged. Since this Bill is a consolidation Bill, it does not change the substantive

843
law. The Bill will, however, enable any future legislation on petroleum to be easier to follow than the existing law.
I am sure that the House would wish to join me in thanking the draftsman and the Law Commission for their important work in simplifying and shortening the statute book. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. At the outset perhaps I may welcome the debut of the noble Earl, Lord Home, on the Opposition Front Bench and say how eagerly I look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Sainsbury of Turville and Lord Stone of Blackheath, both of whom have immense business experience, and to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst. I know that the House will be anxious to hear all of them.
It is said in Proverbs that,
"the borrower is servant to the lender".
I am afraid that in modern commercial practice, all too often the reverse has become the case. Consequently, it should have been no surprise, particularly in the build-up to the election, that in our election manifesto the Labour Party promised to introduce a right to claim interest on the late payment of commercial debts. This was not an empty promise and our election success showed the country's support for the totality of the manifesto. I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should find that amusing. Certainly, the country had no regard for the totality of his party's election manifesto.
In the Queen's Speech on 16th May it was announced that legislation to provide the right would be brought forward during this Session of Parliament. Consequently, a Green Paper, entitled Improving the Payment Culture: A Statutory Right to Claim Interest on Late Payment of Commercial Debt, was published on 28th July outlining the Government's proposals. I am glad to say that more than 450 responses were received. I am delighted to bring forward this Bill which is the result of that consultation. The Bill will give suppliers a statutory right to claim interest from customers where commercial bills are paid late. Exercise of that right will be a voluntary matter and a matter for them alone.
It is important to put today's discussion in an historical context. The issue of interest is not new for the legislature and in presenting this Bill I should like
844
to illustrate where it fits into the current law. As long ago as 1893 Lord Herschell, in the London, Chatham and Dover Railways case, expressed strong sympathy with a claim for interest, going so far as to say that he would be inclined to give effect to it if the law permitted him to do so. That the law did not allow him to do so was, I shall argue, a failure not of the judiciary but of Parliament. Sixty years before in the Civil Procedure Act 1833, the legislature provided that interest could be claimed on a late paid debt where a right to claim interest or a right to interest existed in a contract and the right was properly invoked. As this remained the law up to 1893 and given the particulars of the case before him, it was not surprising that Lord Herschell, albeit with a good deal of sympathy for the plaintiff, found that interest could not be claimed. It was his view that the Civil Procedure Act 1833 placed excessive restrictions on the power to award interest. However, as the legislature had essentially been given the opportunity had it so wished to provide more extensive powers in the 1833 Act and had chosen not to do so, Lord Herschell did not believe that he could provide the remedy and extension.
Forty-one years later the legislature passed the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. Here we find the power to award interest being advanced in a limited way in the interests of justice. I shall not read out Section 3(1) of the Act. I simply refer your Lordships to it and summarise its essence. The section provided any court of record with the power to include in any judgment on any debt or damages interest at a rate it thought fit from the time when the cause of action arose to the date of the judgment. That was a major step forward but it applied only to courts of record and, most importantly, only where the debt remained outstanding at the time of judgment.
In 1974 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, requested the Law Commission:
"To consider the law and practice relating to interest on debt (where interest has not been provided for by contract) and on damages, and to make recommendations".
Some four years later the Law Commission made its report to the Lord Chancellor, including a draft Bill which, had it been adopted as a whole, would have provided a right to claim interest where a debt is paid late before any proceedings; where a debt is paid late after proceedings for its recovery have begun but before they have concluded; and where a debt remains unpaid until a money judgment is given following the conclusion of proceedings for recovery of the debt. The last point mirrored the 1934 Act. It is unfortunate that the government in power in 1982 saw fit only to give effect to part of the draft Bill. The Administration of Justice Act 1982 amended the Supreme Court Act 1981 to provide the courts with the discretion to award interest where a debt was paid late after proceedings had begun regardless of whether or not the proceedings concluded in a judgment on the principal debt. It still left suppliers who were paid late but before proceedings were issued unrecompensed for being kept out of their money.

845
It is 165 years since the Civil Procedure Act 1833 began the development of formal law on the provision of interest on late paid debts. It is my hope that the Bill before the House today will complete the evolutionary cycle. It returns to the recommendations of the Law Commission in 1978 and finally gives all suppliers regardless of when they are paid the right to claim interest on late paid commercial debts. In essence, then, the Bill is a simple extension of the current law, but behind it lie some fundamental views of this Government. We believe that businesses must try to be ethical, trustworthy and competitive. Many years ago when I was a Member of the other place I recall visiting a firm in which the following notice was exhibited:
"In God we trust. All others pay cash".
Wherever practical I should like to see businesses trusting each other rather more than that.
Let us examine the ethical question here. Surely, we can all accept that paying late is wrong and unfair. Any late-paying organisation is effectively saying that it does not value its suppliers or care enough about them to foster good relationships. Where an agreement has been reached as in other walks of life and elsewhere in business practice it should be honoured. Of course, different reasons exist for late payment, some of which we listed in the Green Paper, Improving the Payment Culture. They include deliberate unjustified delay to procure an unfair financial advantage; disputes over the provision of goods and services; temporary cash flow difficulties; administrative errors by either supplier or customer; misunderstanding or uncertainty over the agreed credit period; "pay when paid" contract terms; breakdown in payment systems; and an inability to pay due to insolvency or something close to insolvency.
Where a company cannot pay because it is insolvent there is little that can be done. But where it is for any other reason, aside from their own administrative error, why should suppliers have to bear the cost? They are not at fault. It is time that customers stopped using their suppliers as providers of credit without their agreement and resolved to honour their contracts. It is the Government's firm belief that the cost of late payment must be put back into the hands of those who can control it; the customers themselves.
I turn briefly to competitiveness. How many times have we heard of businesses that pay late because they think it is good business practice? It is not. Businesses must learn that. The costs of the supplier are the costs of the customer. Late payment is a payment made after the expiry of the agreed credit period. The supplier who has had an expectation that he will be paid before the expiry of the credit period finds his expectation to be ill-founded. Economically, the expectation is crucial. How can the supplier price his goods or services properly if he cannot be sure when he will be paid? If credit periods are ignored the supplier will start to increase his prices to cover the risk of late payment. This is an endemic problem in the economy. All businesses are faced with the cost.
The cost of the cash flow risk to the individual business is most plainly seen in the interest rate at which the supplier can obtain agreed loans from the bank. The
846
rate is likely to be higher if there is a strong risk that the business's cash flow will be disrupted by late payment. I believe that all Members of the House agree that uncertainty is not good for business, especially smaller suppliers, or for the stress levels of its financiers. The upshot is higher prices. Customers who pay late add to their own costs: it is time for the absurd practice of late payment, which is all too rife, to be stopped.
The Bill before the House will encourage customers to pay on time, thereby working to eliminate the costly late payment problem. On the other hand, should late payment persist the supplier will be able to claim interest to cover the increased cash flow risk caused by late payment. The cost will no longer be borne by the supplier but by the late paying customer. I assure the House that this legislation is sadly needed now by business. The Green Paper which I mentioned set out the Government's proposals for a statutory right to claim interest on late paid commercial debts. Those proposals received widespread support. For example, the Institute of Directors received 1,700 responses to a survey of its membership, 69 per cent. of which favoured a statutory right to interest. In a concurrent survey by Graydon, a leading debt recovery and credit risk management company, 65 per cent. of respondents were in favour of the Government's proposals. I commend to your Lordships the summary of responses published by my department on 11th December. The charts in it are startling. All the Government's proposals received strong support. In light of that consultation we amended some proposals but the underlying policy remains unaltered from the Green Paper.
The results of the consultation exercise were not a complete surprise. What is a surprise is that the previous government did not provide the right earlier. A Cork Gully Report of 1991 for the CBI found that almost 60 per cent. of businesses regarded late payment as a significant problem. A survey for the British Chambers of Commerce and Alex Lawrie in 1994 found that 85 per cent. of respondents were in favour of a statutory right to interest. In 1996, 75 per cent. of respondents to a Lloyds Bank survey supported a statutory right to interest. It is only now, with a new government committed properly and wholly to competitiveness and economic growth, that action is being taken.
It would be churlish of me if I failed to mention that the previous government did at least in 1993 consult the business community on the merits of legislation for a statutory right to interest. Although the majority of respondents were in favour of legislation, which should not have been a surprise, the government announced in the 1994 competitiveness White Paper, paradoxically entitled Helping Business to Win, that they would not legislate. Instead, they announced a number of measures to help tackle late payment. They did make a commitment to review the case for legislation within two years if there had not been a significant improvement.
In January 1996 the then government consulted business organisations again and announced in May of that year in Your Business Matters—The Government's Response that they had decided against legislation on the grounds that it was likely to be used against small

847
firms rather than by them; that it could lead to longer payment times; and that it could legitimise late payment. Soundings on our own proposals have shown that most of industry believed that approach to be wrong. We believe that the problems identified can be resolved by well drafted legislation.
I turn specifically to criticisms of the Bill's proposals. I shall take each main criticism in turn; no doubt others will be revealed during the debate. First, it is said that the legislation will be used against small businesses. Of course, it is possible that the legislation might he used against small businesses. If they pay late then they must accept the consequence. While the Government can see no reason for large companies to pay late, given the resources at their disposal, they recognise that some small firms may not have the credit management systems to ensure that they meet all their payments on time. That was recognised by the previous government. Measures have been, or are being, developed in partnership with the private sector to help small businesses which may have limited resources to develop the necessary systems. Those measures should be given time to assist small businesses before giving their business suppliers the opportunity to claim interest from them.
For that reason the Government intend, as set out in the Green Paper, to phase in the commencement of the Bill. When the first commencement order comes into force, the statutory right to claim interest will be exercisable by small businesses against all large enterprises, including the public sector. We envisage that the right will be extended, after a period of two years, for use by small businesses against all enterprises of any size, including the public sector. Finally, we envisage that the right will be extended, again after a further period of at least two years, to all enterprises, including the public sector, to use against all corresponding enterprises. Through that phased approach all businesses will be given the opportunity to implement systems that will allow them to pay their bills on time. Should they fail to do so, then, of course, they open themselves up to claims for interest.
The second main criticism is that the legislation will lead to longer payment times. The previous government said that a statutory right to interest would lengthen payment times. That seems to be missing the point altogether. A statutory right to interest, as I outlined earlier, is a tool to prevent late payment and the cash flow risk that it engenders. As long as suppliers know when they will be paid they can manage their cash flow. If they can only guess when they will be paid, then it is that which brings risk.
There is criticism that the legislation will legitimise late payment. I do not accept that. Late payment is never legitimate anyway. It ends up costing the company more money in the long run. By setting the interest rate at a level which both deters late payment and recompenses even the weakest companies for being kept out of their money, many businesses will find that paying late is no longer a cheap option in the short run either.
848
Having necessarily taken some time to detail the background to, and rationale of, the Bill, let me turn to its format. Part I sets out to which contracts and debts the right will apply and from when interest will accrue. It also provides a power to set the rate of statutory interest by order of the Secretary of State. I confirm that it is the Government's recommendation that the rate of statutory interest be set at base rate plus 8 per cent. We have been advised by the Bank of England that that is the rate at which the weakest businesses may obtain agreed overdrafts or term loans. That is of course a departure from the suggestion contained in the Green Paper.
I turn to Part II. If the legislation is to be effective in curtailing late payment, it is necessary to restrict the ability of businesses to contract-out of the legislation. The Government, in drafting the legislation, have sought to limit restrictions on the freedom of contract to the bare minimum consistent with the philosophy of the Bill. Businesses will be able to negotiate their own contractual remedies for late payment unless such remedies are inadequate for the purpose of compensating the supplier or deterring late payment, and it would not be fair and reasonable to allow the term to oust the right to claim interest under the Bill. The courts will be able to strike down contractual remedies that fail those tests. Such remedies may include offers of nugatory interest or the imposition of excessive credit periods.
Part III deals with the treatment of advance payments of the contract price; the jurisdictional extent of the Bill; assignment and separation of the right to interest; and the definition of terms in the Bill. It is important that business should be able to pursue a claim for interest, even if the principal has been paid, and to be able to assign the right to that interest to a third party. By bundling together a number of claims, a third party would be able to pursue the interest more cost effectively.
I wish specifically to direct the House to the final clause. This includes a commencement power that has been drafted to permit the Secretary of State to introduce the statutory right to interest in transitional phases. I have already outlined how those phases will operate. The first commencement order will define a small business. We intend that a company be considered small if it has 50 or fewer full-time employees or part-time equivalents. Ninety nine per cent. of businesses will qualify as "small" businesses under that proposed definition. Those businesses represent nearly 46 per cent. of private sector employment. That indicates just how important the Bill is, and how consistent it is with our determination to ensure the increased prosperity and competitiveness of SMEs.
The Green Paper had suggested using the definition in the Companies Act. However, as that might change and is not wholly transparent, we have recommended relying on the third element of that definition alone—the number of employees. That meets our concern to ensure that the legislation is transparent and easy for the lay person to use.

849
I apologise for speaking at greater length, on a short Bill, than I would have chosen. Some may say, "That is of characteristic length for the noble and learned Lord". However, I wish to conclude by making two important points. First, we recognise the importance of research on payment best practice during the phasing-in of the legislation. To that end the Government have commissioned work from Bradford University and we will seek similar support from the private sector. It is important that we are kept informed of what is happening in practice. We shall build on the emerging practice of large companies in setting out in their annual reports their record of payment of debts on time. That is a commendable practice and I hope that it can be widened.
Secondly, I do not wish to leave the House with the impression that we see this legislation as a panacea for the problems of late payment. We know that that is not the case. It is but one measure in a package of measures which the Government are following in partnership with the private sector in order to improve the payment culture. Advice on credit management, league tables of payment performance, the reform of access to civil justice—and, in this context, use of the small claims courts procedures is important—and support for payment standards and national vocational qualifications have a role to play in improving the payment culture. This legislation is the backstop. Where a supplier has done everything right and still finds that payment is delayed, I believe that the Bill will give the supplier the weapon that he needs, if he wants to use it.
The Bill constitutes a rebuttal of the Oscar Wilde thesis, which is:
"I don't want money. It's only people who pay their bills who want that and I never pay mine".
I believe that the Bill is important. In time, it will be seen to be of great value to small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind welcome and I look forward to further opportunities to debate matters of mutual interest. Furthermore, we on these Benches look forward to the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Hardinge, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Stone, who are to speak later in the debate for the first time. No doubt they have had different experiences from the rest of us and we shall listen with great care to what they have to say.
I am pleased that through the publication of the Bill the Government have at least shown that they are prepared to continue some of the work which the Conservative Government did to address the problems faced by small and medium-sized enterprises. SMEs, if I may use the initials, have problems which larger corporations do not and it is self-evident that late payment and had debts hurt small businesses much more than their larger brethren.
850
No one would dispute the importance of SMEs to the health of the country. Perhaps I may make it clear at the outset that the Conservative Party does not under any circumstances condone the deliberate unjustified late payment of bills, particularly by organs of government or by major corporations, especially if the sufferers are those in a poor position to fight back because of their size or status.
The greatest service which any government can give to SMEs is to provide the best economic and financial environment in which to operate. The Conservative Government provided those conditions with sustained low inflation and low basic rates of tax. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are 1 million more companies in this country than there were 15 years ago and the great majority of these are SMEs. In the private sector, some 35 per cent. of all firms employ fewer than 20 people and about half employ fewer than 100.
However, SMEs have considerable growing pains and the management of often meagre resources, in terms of both capital and bank facilities, is often stretched to the limit. There is a natural and understandable desire by the founders of small enterprises to keep control over all aspects of their business. These people are often inspired inventors, good retailers, excellent producers and fine marketers. However, often they are less interested in the financial side of their business, which is regarded as a necessary evil.
Last summer we had an excellent debate in this House following the publication of a report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by my noble friend Lady Hogg, on the problems faced by SMEs in attracting capital into small businesses. It is good that today we have a chance to look at another factor which affects such companies, namely late payment. However, what worries me today is the way in which the debate has come about. We are not looking at a report produced by an erudite committee, as we were last summer, but at a Bill which we know is thought by many practitioners involved with SMEs to be premature or unnecessary.
In 1995, the Conservative Government issued the competitiveness White Paper, Forging Ahead, which urged smaller businesses to put forward their views on what type of policies would assist them. A series of conferences led by the Institute of Directors, with excellent participation from, inter alio, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business, produced some interesting results.
During these conferences, which culminated on 11th March 1997, among other topics, we considered and debated with SMEs the option of statutory interest payments on late debt. That consultation was complemented by a five-month review launched in January 1996. The Minister mentioned that consultation, but he did not mention that eight out of nine small business representatives opposed compulsory interest payments on late debt because of the negative impact that could have on their members. In my view, the Conservative Government rightly supported eight out of the nine.

851
Draft regulations were also laid before Parliament on 24th January 1997 by the then Minister for small businesses. They required each public company and each large private company within a group headed by a public company to state their payment practice in their directors' reports. Those statements provide information on how long on average it has taken the company to pay its bills. Requiring companies to disclose their payment performance will bring about greater transparency and will help small firms to monitor year-on-year payment records of larger companies with which they may consider doing business.
In September 1996, the new British Standard on payment performance (BS7890) was launched. That standard requires companies to handle transactions transparently, fairly and promptly, to provide clear documentation and to settle disputes quickly. Government departments were required to sign up to it.
The previous government, for good reasons, took the steps which I mentioned to tackle those problems and I believe that those steps will pay off. Regardless of the Bill, if it comes into law, I expect some continuing improvement in late payment statistics during the next few years as a result of the actions which we initiated. We on these Benches will therefore monitor the figures carefully, because I believe that the existence of a statutory rate of interest will have little or no extra effect on that trend.
Furthermore, I should like the Minister to tell us why the Bill is being brought forward now when we understand that a directive from Brussels on the topic will shortly be issued. Is this Bill not premature, or does the Minister already know what the directive contains? Is the content of the directive consistent with the content of this Bill? If it is not, are we to readdress this whole topic shortly after this Bill reaches the statute book? This proposed piece of legislation is quite complicated for the small businessman and it would be a nightmare for him to have to learn a new set of rules just after he has mastered the first set.
Last year the Federation of Small Businesses said of the proposal for statutory interest:
"In all likelihood, Labour saw the issue as a headline grabber. A statutory rate of interest will not change the late payment culture".
I share the federation's fear that this Bill may turn out to be a high profile attempt by the Government to be seen to be doing something for SMEs when in fact it will merely solve one small part of one of their difficulties.
Large figures have been quoted in relation to late payments. Some £20 billion was quoted as currently financing trade credit. However, those figures are meaningless unless the reasons for slow or late payments are analysed. Analysis shows that well over half of all late payments are due to administrative inefficiency at the supplier's end. A survey carried out by the REL Consultancy Group showed that 30 per cent. of invoices contained some error and that up to 90 per cent. of payment delays are due to disputes in relation to wrong price, wrong quality, delivery notes not issued or terms not agreed in advance. In such instances, it is
852
perfectly proper for the purchaser to withhold payment for, although he is contributing intentionally to a late payment problem, he is not doing so maliciously. If the supplier could be taught to produce the right product at the right time to the right specification and then send the right invoice with the right reference to the right address, a large part of the problem would disappear.
There are some purchasers who are unintentional late payers. Again the evidence suggests that many small firms which pay late often do so through incompetence or because a manager doubles as a finance controller and does not get round to paying his bills on time. Again, those instances are not malicious and should be capable of amicable settlement between the parties involved without recourse to law.
The real culprit is the malicious late payer who delays settling invoices because that will help his own cash flow and he believes that the supplier will not dare take him to court for fear of loss of future business. Again, according to surveys carried out, those offenders are comparatively few and some, even some very large corporations, can be persuaded that their policies will rebound against them and they will face increased prices or lesser service in the longer term.
There is the proposal that companies or government organisations which are thought to be maliciously taking advantage of the minnows supplying them should be named and shamed into improving their treatment of creditors. We support that proposal wholeheartedly for it is unacceptable that they should be allowed to take unfair advantage purely because of size or status. Nor indeed has the Conservative Party ever hesitated to criticise strongly those who maliciously pay their bills late, even those in the public sector. My noble friend Lord Lang, the then President of the Board of Trade, said in 1996 that it is not right that government departments should let their payment performances slip.
However, this Bill will not force government bodies or big business to behave better. The Minister quoted many statistics. There is another statistic which shows that if the statutory right of interest existed, 59 per cent. of small businesses would not enforce it for fear that the customer would not pay and would take his business elsewhere. There is also a danger that malicious companies with power will simply force smaller enterprises to extend their contractual payment terms by the number of days that in the past they have paid late.
But it would be wrong to place all the blame on big business or government. Some big businesses behave extremely well towards their smaller brethren. The bulk of trade by SMEs is with other SMEs and, by and large. they have more cash flow worries than the large institutions or government agencies. Small purchasers may well pay late because they have genuine cash flow problems, but they are simply transferring their own problems to someone else.
The facts are that following initiatives taken by the previous government, the situation shows some sign of improvement, although it is early days to judge some of those results. Government departments and agencies have often attracted criticism but they have now agreed to abide by the CBI prompt payers' code and to

853
publicise their payment performance. In due course we shall see from the figures whether that discipline will achieve the desired effect. But in the meantime, we should wait to see whether the trend continues.
The European Commission's report on late payments in commercial transactions shows that between 1995 and 1996 in the United Kingdom the number of overdue days in payment decreased from 23 to 22 while the contractual credit period remained the same. No other country in Table 2 of the Commission's report achieved more than we did; namely, an improvement of one day. In Austria, Belgium and Italy, average payment periods increased from 1995 to 1996 and all those countries have late payment penalties.
Although only seven countries are mentioned in that table, the Commission's report last year on 9th July stated that, by the time accounts payable are 30 days late. the United Kingdom's record is second only to Germany, and at 60 and 120 days late we have the best record. Indeed, Germany has the worst record when one looks at 120 days payment. The evidence in that report demonstrates that the poor payment disease is endemic throughout Europe despite many countries having statutory late payment penalties. The United Kingdom, so often cited as a poor performer, is overall no worse than many and is indeed better than some.
The Green Paper which the Minister mentioned states:
"The right to interest on overdue payments is found also in Spain. Legislation there has existed since 1985 and the average overdue payment period is just 6 days".
That statement is extremely misleading. It gives the impression that the SRI has made a great difference. But the average contractual period in Spain is 68 days. Therefore, the average payment period is 74 days, which is 25 days longer than in this country. Indeed, it is possible that in Spain the contractual credit period was shorter prior to 1985 and, in order to avoid interest payments, big business forced small suppliers to extend the contractual credit period which is offered. The Government cannot hold out Spain as a shining example of a country where SRIs have worked without producing the statistics prior to their introduction there. In any event, I venture to say that to quote a country with a 74-day average payment period is hardly something of which the Government should be proud.
There are several other points in the Bill on which we shall be seeking explanation from the Government both in Committee here and in another place. To the extent that the Bill applies to exports from this country, I believe it to be totally irrelevant. I do not believe that exporters will run the risk of extending contract negotiations or, indeed, losing a potential sale by trying to explain to foreign purchasers why they should pay interest on a late payment. Exporters will simply ignore this Bill.
We will also be asking the Government to tell us why the rate of interest formula cannot be on the face of the Bill. As drafted, the rate of interest can be purely the whim of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State apparently does not have to consult the Treasury, the Bank of England or any other part of government
854
involved with finance. I have myself been involved in many negotiations on export contracts and default interest, both under the auspices of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and on straight unguaranteed sales. It is hard enough explaining to a foreigner the rationale for default interest under a tried and tested system such as the ECGD system, but I shudder at the thought of trying to explain to a foreign purchaser why he should pay a rate of interest which may have been set by an individual with no financial experience and without reference to anyone who has such experience. We should be told what the formula is.
The Minister said that the rate of interest should be 8 per cent. over base rate. However, as I understand it. Brussels is talking about a penal rate of interest. How are these two reconciled? Is the Minister's proposed formula the rate that will endure, or do we go back to the whim of the Secretary of State? On this, I believe that the Government have been even more dictatorial with Parliament than usual, always assuming that they have decided what the formula should be.
Those and other points, such as the phasing in of the provisions of the Bill, need much clarification both in this House and in the other place. While we from these Benches agree that it is laudable and right to penalise wilful late payers, we do not believe that this piece of legislation will achieve that end. We shall continue to press the Government to improve it.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, gave us the reasons why the Government consider that it is now right for legislation to be introduced for late payment. The noble Earl, Lord Home, gave us the reasons why he did not believe that this was an appropriate way of dealing with the problem which he admits exists but which he believes should be dealt with in another way. I should explain that we from these Benches have long advocated a statutory right for payment of interest on late debts and, therefore, we support the broad thrust of the legislation. Despite attempts over recent years to achieve better payment of commercial debts by voluntary means, there are still widespread delays in payment which in extreme cases can put some smaller firms out of business.
I should like to commend the Government on the way in which they have handled the matter. As the Minister reminded us, a consultation paper was issued in July 1997, after which a very useful summary of responses to the paper was produced in December. The Government took account of a number of views then expressed and have intimated that they will also take careful note of comments made during the Bill's passage through Parliament. I trust that that excellent procedure can be followed in future, especially where there are technical aspects to the proposed legislation.
The case for introducing a statutory right to claim interest on late payment is clearly made out on page 7 of the consultation document. The majority of businesses regard late payment as a significant problem. The extent of late payment was revealed in a report issued last

855
October by Dunn and Bradstreet, the business information service. In a survey of 86,000 companies, it showed that less than 20 per cent. of businesses pay their bills on time. Delay is more widespread among larger companies than smaller ones. That seems justification enough for the Government's proposed legislation.
However, there is also general agreement that legislation of this sort cannot, of itself, transform the payment culture. Indeed, that point was made by both previous speakers in today's debate. Some people feel that small firms would be reluctant to press for interest on late payment because of the risk of jeopardising their long-term business prospects. That point was also made by the noble Earl. So the legislation must clearly be buttressed by a series of other measures. In my opinion, three are of particular importance.
The first is the need for an effective legal system to enable a creditor effectively to enforce the statutory right to claim interest. The Green Paper sets out on page 10 ways in which small businesses could use the courts more effectively in enforcing their right to interest. The Lord Chancellor is currently reviewing proposals for the reform of the civil justice system with a view to reducing delay and costs. Respondents to the Green Paper were clearly concerned about existing legal arrangements. They consider that access to justice should be made easier and quicker and suggested that the small claims court limit should be increased and that there should be better enforcement of county court judgments. Clearly the issue of court access and enforcement of judgments is crucial to support the legislation on late payments.
Secondly, there should be publication of the details of the payment performance of public companies. That is to be undertaken by the Federation of Small Businesses on the basis of information now contained within companies' accounts, to which the noble Earl referred.
Thirdly, credit management procedures must be improved. A part of the difficulties that small firms in particular encounter in getting prompt payment is created by delays and errors in invoicing. Again, the noble Earl also mentioned that point. The DTI has published a guide on credit management and debt recovery and supports other measures to bring about better credit control among smaller companies. Associated with that are the efforts to promote the adoption of BS7890 (the British Standard) for achieving good payment performance in commercial transactions. The document setting out the responses to the Green Paper indicates a number of ways in which the payment culture can be improved.
An aspect which has stimulated much discussion, and one which was also raised this afternoon, is the proposed phasing of the introduction of the statutory right to claim interest on late payment. It is intended that this should be done by order under Clause 15 of the Bill. The Government's phasing proposals are set out on page 12 of the consultation paper and were also referred to by the Minister. They consider that a four-year phasing-in
856
period is necessary to enable small businesses to adjust effectively to the legislation. However, it can reasonably be asked whether this is not too long a period.
Further, the distinction between small and large businesses is not entirely satisfactory. A small business is defined as one employing no more than 50 persons. Therefore, by inference, a large business is one employing more than 50 persons. It has never been my description of a large business that it should be employing, say, 51 persons. There are large numbers of businesses employing between 50 and 100; indeed, up to 200 persons. If it is intended to keep the definition of a small business up to 50 persons, then I suggest that there is a strong case for eliminating phase 1 (small businesses claiming against large businesses and the public sector) and moving straight away to phase 2 (small businesses claiming against all businesses and the public sector). At the expiry of two years the procedure would be opened up to all businesses.
It seems to me that there would be a number of advantages in this alternative. First of all, it would speed up the process. Secondly, it would avoid any difficulty in small businesses wishing to claim interest where acting in relation to a so-called large business and determining whether or not it was a large business according to the definition. There would undoubtedly be a grey area between the firms employing up to 50 and those employing more than 50. Thirdly, it might be argued that small firms could feel more at ease in a system which applied to everyone, rather than one that applied specifically to them. They might feel themselves somewhat less exposed to larger businesses in a generalised scheme from which larger businesses also could benefit. This would support a shorter phasing-in period.
I wish to raise a question in connection with the European Commission which is very much on the lines mentioned by the noble Earl. The Commission is due to bring forward a directive on the right to claim interest on late payments, but the directive itself is late. It was intended to have been produced by the latter part of last year, but it is still apparently some time away. The Government state that they wish to work closely with the Commission to ensure that the directive and UK legislation are consistent. The question is, how would the Government deal with any inconsistencies if the directive were still delayed after the present Bill was enacted? The Bill represents an important step towards changing the payment culture. We therefore support it in its broad thrust. But to be really effective it must be accompanied by other measures and these, in our opinion, are just as important as the Bill itself.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, may I first of all take this opportunity to thank the Members of your Lordships' House for the kindness and generosity of my welcome here in recent weeks, to thank the staff in similar terms, and to thank particularly everyone who has helped me with procedures, geography and research. My blunders will naturally be my own; but the space where many other blunders would have been will be mostly theirs.

857
I have been a bookseller for over 25 years. Currently I work for a medium-sized independent Scottish company, running its library supply and export division. I have worked for several small companies and never for a really large one, although my present employers are "un-small" by the definitions of the present legislation. I should mention that I sit on the export committee of the Booksellers Association and I am a director of Book Tokens Limited, which runs the booksellers' payments clearing house.
In case any mild carping that I may do should give the impression that I oppose the Bill, I should say at once that it seems to me justified in principle and correct for reasons already put forward. Suppliers are entitled to be paid to time. Exhortation is unlikely to achieve much; in fact, exhortation has already not achieved much. Legislation would be at minimum a powerful signal of disapproval towards the worst current practice. The other most powerful signal the Government could give would be to achieve their own targets. I particularly treasure the assertion that,
"public sector bodies are currently expected to pay bills within 30 days and so should already have the necessary payment and monitoring systems in place".
When the three months and over debtors schedule lands on my desk around the 10th of every month, public sector bodies are always notable by their presence. There are of course shining exceptions but that is the rule. There is plenty of work to be done in this area. I think, too, that paying in due time will turn out to have a significant impact on public sector administrative and financing costs. It is fair to say that UK public sector bodies are generally angels of light compared with their overseas counterparts.
The principle of the Bill, then, seems right, and the increased pressure it will put on public sector bodies seems mostly desirable. There remains the concern that large debtors can still bully small creditors in various ways. As one who has signed various outrageous contracts with large customers, I am sure this is true, but the obvious way of doing it—negotiating longer credit terms—represents some improvement over the present situation because of the greater openness. At present, a bidder for a contract may suspect that the purchaser will not pay to time, but it is hard to be sure. That uncertainty pushes everyone towards bidding on the basis that payment will be to time; and the untruthful are rewarded. But if a company asks for bids on the explicit basis of, say, payment in 120 days, the situation is different. The price will tend to rise in line with the expected cost of borrowing the money for the specified period. In fact it will tend to rise in line with the expected cost to the bidders of borrowing the money for the specified period. If the bidders are smaller than the purchaser, and the purchaser has access to cheaper funds, it may well be in the purchaser's interest to specify a short payment time.
But what about the creditors if this does not happen, and payment terms are extended? To my mind certainty is at least as important as actual payment terms. In my experience banks are pretty happy—sometimes too happy—to lend money against a known revenue stream. It is when the stream fails to flow that they become
858
upset because they wonder whether one knows how to manage one's business. The present legislation will not of course produce complete clarity, but it can hardly fail to improve the current situation.
Having said that, practice and theory can be a little different. I think my employers are not untypical of the book trade, which is the only trade that I know at all well. We have nearly 30,000 suppliers, which is about 150 suppliers for every member of staff, and the number increases relentlessly. Negotiating any kind of special deal with more than a few hundred of the biggest is clearly completely impracticable. For the rest there is almost never a formal contract. In a typical month four members of staff in purchase ledger process between 25,000 and 30,000 invoices from a random subset of these 30,000 suppliers. Presumably this mountain of transactions—usually but not always small—will be regulated by some mixture of the present Bill, normal trade practice where that can be determined, and whatever conditions happen to be on the back of invoices. These are invariably unread even if they happen to be in English rather than in Dutch or Japanese.
I mention this because in this environment the only way order can be imposed on the proceedings is by doing one main payment run for these smaller suppliers at the end of each month. This normally includes invoices dated the previous month. Book trade structures such as the clearing house which I mentioned earlier have been set up to function on this basis. While page 11—I think it is page 11—of the DTI's summary of responses to the Green Paper seems to assert that businesses can trade on the basis of single monthly payments where this is trade practice, I see nothing to that effect in the Bill. The cash flow implications are not too serious, as the sums are usually not a huge proportion of total purchases, but the administrative work is potentially appalling and some comment on that would certainly be appreciated.
The final matter which concerns me is to do with exporting, and I have already declared an interest. The exporter is likely to be paying UK suppliers sooner than previously. After all, that is the point, and I am confident that changing the balance of power from retailer to supplier will make it harder to negotiate special export terms, in addition to the continuing difficulty of negotiating with very large numbers of suppliers. But payment will arrive at the same time as it did before, so exposure is likely to increase. Imports may well become relatively more attractive—I can think of one or two examples in our own practice—for the same reason. I do not know whether the Government have considered the implications of this and whether any reassurance can be given.
I shall not trespass upon your Lordships' patience much longer. Many years ago when my father was finishing his maiden speech here, he commented that he had been advised to be both brief and dull, and that he had had no difficulty in following that excellent advice. I have been rather less brief, and much duller, so it only remains for me to thank those present once again for their patience.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it gives me very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, who has delivered a notable maiden speech. He speaks from his immediate business experience. As he indicated, he has been a bookseller for 25 years. I am not sure whether he mentioned that his main seat of activity at present is in the city of Glasgow. He mentioned his work with the Booksellers Association. He has spoken from great experience of the commercial and business world. However, the first Lord Hardinge of Penshurst was a great public servant as Viceroy of India earlier in the century; and the noble Lord's grandfather performed great public service as private secretary to Their Majesties King Edward VIII and King George VI. The noble Lord made a notable speech today. As is often said in this House, we look forward to hearing him again. However, I say that especially because he will then be able to combine the public service of some of his ancestors with the commercial service of his father and himself which has been so helpful to us today.
The only problem I have with the legislation being introduced today is a fundamental one. Should the law intervene to provide a non-excludable right to claim interest on the late payment of a commercial debt when the commercial parties to the contract themselves have not agreed that such interest should be paid?
I have no doubt that when a business enterprise receives the benefit of goods and services and deliberately, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Home, put it several times, maliciously, fails to pay up in due time that is ethically wrong. There can be no doubt in any part of the House about that. It is immoral and shabby conduct in particular when the supplier is a small business so dependent on cash flow. It is shocking that a former Deputy Prime Minister should have boasted that paying late in respect of debts due was a practice he regularly engaged in when he was in business. Money delayed is money denied. The supplier is prevented from having the use of money that is rightfully his until such time as the debtor, in his own good time, chooses to pay up. In the meantime the supplier is cheated out of his entitlement.
Opponents of the Bill say that it is already quite possible to insert by way of a contract term an interest sanction on firms which pay late. Of course that is so. But it is rarely likely to be practical, in particular for a small business, to insist on a right to interest being provided for in the terms of the contract. That in a nutshell is the value and justification of the statutory right to interest introduced by the Bill.
I do not believe that every possible instance of immoral or unethical business conduct should necessarily be made unlawful. But, to put the Bill into some recent context, in recent years—I think of Bills introduced by governments of different political colours—it has become increasingly necessary for the law to reinforce ethical standards, especially in order to try to even out the imbalance of power that exists between business and the private consumer and big business and small business. Hence in recent years
860
various governments have introduced all the legal rules about extortionate credit bargains, truth in lending, unfair contract terms and the financial services legislation of 1986. Free competition—it is favoured, I believe, by all sides of the House—which is so desirable to enhance efficiency for the good of all, can have the downside of causing a lowering of standards, as even the more reputable firms are tempted to reduce standards of quality and behaviour to their customers in order to cope with competition and to survive. Different governments have said many times in the past 30, 40 or 50 years that laws are needed in order to back up responsible standards of decent business morality.
If creditors normally have to go to court to obtain the benefit of the new statutory rights which the Bill proposes to introduce in order to claim interest on late payment of debts, the Bill will not have achieved a great deal. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Home, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, that giving a small business a statutory right will not necessarily make it keen to challenge the people who owe it money any more than it is keen to do so now. The Bill will not have achieved much, therefore, if the person has to go to court in order to claim his rights. But a number of powerful incentives within and without the Bill help.
One powerful incentive for debtors to comply without being taken to court is referred to in the consultative paper at paragraph 3.5.2. Credit rating agencies are likely to,
"review their ratings of debtors who fail to pay interest".
Further incentives are provided by the useful scheme which has been organised by the Federation of Small Businesses to publish league tables showing the average payment times of public companies. I commend Clause 13 of the Bill, whereby the statutory right to interest extends to debts that are assigned to someone else, like a debt collector, who could make a business of bundling together a number of small debts, making it economically attractive to pursue the interest which one particular creditor might not think it worth while, or might be embarrassed, to pursue himself.
One of the many suggestions put to the Government in the course of the valuable consultation process was that chasing late payments should be a regulatory function. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned this but, like him, I am a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. In that context it rather naturally springs to mind that local authority trading standards officers could give information and advice and assist businesses to pursue claims to interest on the late payment of commercial debts.
Obviously, as the Minister said, legislation like this is not a panacea but, along with other matters that have been or will be encouraged by the Bill, it can change the culture.
Finally, I have a couple of detailed queries on the Bill. The first was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The European Commission is bringing forward a directive on the subject. The Government's July consultation paper envisaged that unlike its own proposals the EU

861
would propose a penal rate of interest on late payments. The Government stated that they did not support a penal rate because it would not be proportionate to the perceived wrong and might increase the likelihood of debtors challenging in court the right to interest; for example, by alleging that the goods or services supplied were defective or deficient. How do the Government intend to ensure that their proposals in the Bill are compatible with the EU proposals, which we have not finally seen? Are the provisions of Clause 5, especially the reference in Clause 5(2) to "deterring" the late payment of debts, drafted deliberately in a broad way so that penal—or, to put it another way, deterrent—rates of statutory interest could be introduced by statutory instrument under the wording of the Bill?
My second detailed question relates to Clause 2, in which certain contracts are excluded from the operation of the Bill, including conditional sale and hire purchase agreements. Since such contracts have the same ultimate purpose as contracts for the sale of goods, I should like to know why they are excluded. I realise that payments due under those types of contracts are due periodically, by week or month, but I see also from Clause 2 that a contract for the simple hire—not hire purchase—of goods is included in the operation of the Bill. Such payments, like hire purchase payments, are also due periodically. Will the Minister explain those distinctions?
Finally, I wish the Bill a successful and speedy passage through the House.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity of participating in the debate. When I became a Member of this House I was told that 1 should expect a friendly welcome but was also ominously warned only to speak in debates where I had some in-depth knowledge as there would always be world-class experts present.
In the short time I have been here I have already experienced with pleasure the courtesy and friendliness of the House and have heard enough of the debates to convince me of the risks of displaying my ignorance. With that experience, however, has dawned the awful realisation that my various areas of expertise, such as the financial appraisal of supermarket sites, the aerodynamics of shopping trolleys, and how to tell whether an avocado pear is ripe, are not subjects as widely debated by your Lordships as I had hoped.
I have therefore hesitated to embark upon my maiden speech. I think, however, that I can claim some knowledge about the corporate payment of bills, having been for 17 years finance director, and now the chairman, of a company which processes around 85,000 invoices a week and which has some 3,000 suppliers worldwide.
We believe that to achieve high levels of innovation and quality we need to have long-term relationships with our suppliers which are built on trust. We are proud of the fact that one of our current suppliers started supplying us with meat and poultry in 1898, another started supplying us with tea in 1903, and a third started
862
supplying us with Stilton in 1914. However, such productive long-term relationships can flourish only if the energies of the participants are not wasted in constantly arguing about the late payment of bills. It is not possible today to have an efficient logistics system or rapid product development if trust does not exist between a company and its suppliers. I was brought up in business by my noble uncle, Lord Sainsbury of Drury Lane, to believe that what is right often makes good commercial sense, and the payment of bills on time is a good example.
I have a second reason for wishing to speak in the debate. While the subject may appear boring to some people, for many businesses, particularly small ones, being able to rely on an assured cash flow may be the difference between survival and bankruptcy. Too many small businesses rely heavily on trade debt for their working capital, with the result that the failure of one company can have a domino effect and lead to a chain of bankruptcies. As well as increasing the level of risk for business, the late payment of hills is also a major source of waste. Time and manpower have to he allocated to chasing up debtors, none of which adds to the value of the product or service in the marketplace.
In Britain the problem is especially severe because late payment seems unfortunately to have become an ingrained practice. A recent Bank of England survey showed that in the fourth quarter of 1996, less than 25 per cent. of businesses in the United Kingdom paid their bills promptly, and nearly 50 per cent. paid their bills more than 15 days late.
I do not think anyone could disagree with the basic principle of the Bill. Time is money and companies should be required to pay their bills when they say they will. There is, of course, room for debate as to whether a Bill such as this is the solution to dealing with late payment. In the past there has been considerable argument among organisations representing small businesses as to the merits of such legislation, although I believe the Bill now enjoys a wide measure of support across the business community, including that of the CBI, the Institute of Directors, and the Federation of Small Businesses. There have been two areas of concern. First, there are those who believe that the legislation will not be used by small companies because they fear that their more powerful customers will take their business elsewhere. Secondly, there are those who are concerned that stronger customers will invalidate the legislation by insisting on longer credit periods so that there is no danger of them paying interest.
I do not think that too much weight should be given to those arguments, and I believe that the Bill will be effective. I have two reasons for holding that view. First, in all other countries in the European Union, other than Ireland and Luxembourg, such legislation exists and is widely used. The statistics relating to the late payment of bills, as the noble Earl said, are not clear-cut, but if we look at late payment as opposed to payment terms, they support the Bill. In terms of payments overdue, the Nordic countries have the best record and also the highest proportion of businesses which charge interest on late payments. I do not believe that that is just coincidence. While I do not think that it is as easy as

863
many people believe to copy the industrial legislation and institutions of other countries, in this case the evidence is compelling. And if large companies do formally lengthen their credit periods, that will quickly become clear to other businesses, and no doubt their suppliers will then charge them prices which reflect that fact.
Secondly, while there will always be cases where mistakes are made and invoices disputed, what this Bill seeks to address is the intentional, systematic abuse of an agreement entered into in good faith. A European survey recently asked respondents about the major causes of late payments. In the UK, 51 per cent. of businesses cited intentional late payment as the primary cause. It was one of the highest figures in Europe.
Action is clearly needed. In the circumstances, to talk of this Bill being premature is rather like criticising a tortoise for sprinting. But, as has been remarked, we should not think that by passing the Bill the situation will be transformed overnight. Further measures will be needed. What we are seeking to do is to change a business culture, and that can be a slow and difficult process.
Britain's best companies are among the finest in the world, and we have strong positions in some of the growth industries of the future such as biotechnology, financial services and educational software. The success of those businesses will depend on the enterprise, vision and skills of management. Government cannot provide a substitute for that. But it can provide a competitive and supportive environment for innovative businesses. It can create the framework within which businesses, whether large or small, can compete effectively in today's global market-place. That is the business of government, and this Bill is a small but critically important step in providing just such an environment for British industry.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, on a most excellent maiden speech which bore the characteristics of modesty. humour, expertise and common sense. It is also a great personal pleasure for me to do so because I have the highest regard and liking for the noble Lord, sharing, as we do, a passionate devotion to the work of the Royal Shakespeare Company and all that is needed to secure the further strengthening and development of that great institution.
As the noble Lord reminded us briefly during the course of his speech, the company he serves bears a great name and has a great history. But in part that reputation is maintained and enhanced because of the financial management and expertise that the noble Lord brings to the company, together with his tremendous integrity which is a beacon to all those of us who seek to work in business and industry. If I add that the noble Lord, like so many members of his notable family, has a reputation for great philanthropy and benefactions, then I am sure we are all aware of the great good fortune
864
we have that he is among us. We look forward to all his speeches on all issues that come before the House, even European directives as to the quality of avocado pears.
The inability to recover interest on debt which is paid late has long been a total anomaly in our law. When I practised at the Bar, it was sometimes necessary to advise clients that the only way in which they could recover a debt with interest was to engage in the contentious activity of issuing a writ. If the debt was paid before the writ was issued, then no interest was payable. I was asked, not unnaturally, from time to time by clients what was the logic of that and the answer had to be short and somewhat apologetic. There was none.
As the Minister pointed out, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity recognised more than a century ago that this injustice cried out for reform. So this really is not a case in which it can be suggested that law reform is either over-hasty or ill-conceived.
I became even more conscious of the damage done by late payment of debt when I started to work for NatWest. We act as bankers to almost 30 per cent. of companies in this country. I am proud that we are widely regarded as the leading bank for small and medium-sized companies. I have consistently and all too regularly learnt of the havoc which the virus of late payment of debt causes many medium-sized and small businesses. This was particularly acute through the last recession. Where debts are paid late, it is extremely difficult for a business to plan its budget and in particular its cash flow. In turn, this makes it harder for banks to respond intelligently to financial requests based on the cash flow projections of smaller companies.
The concerns of many businesses over late payment have long been well known. They have been effectively expressed by Stan Mendham, of the Forum of Private Business, to whose articulacy and energy in mounting the case for interest on debt paid late I am glad to pay tribute.
Our own research has consistently highlighted the problems caused by late payment. The regular research of the Small Business Research Trust which we sponsor asked respondents to list the most important of 14 problems facing their businesses. In the latest survey, 1 1 per cent. cited cash flow/payment/debtors as their most significant problem. Perhaps even more significantly, in the 32 surveys carried out since research started some eight years ago. the issue of late payment of debt has appeared every single time as one of the three largest problems.
I well know that the last government were conscious of the problem and I compliment them on their actions in seeking to encourage measures which would lead to voluntary action reducing late payment. The CBI also introduced a payment code. All that was positive because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the law cannot be a panacea in this area. Understandably, perhaps, the last government sought to minimise the intervention of the law in the commercial world. But long experience has shown that this is an area where there now needs to be a legal framework to change the culture. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bone, I do not envisage a large number of actions for recovery of interest clogging up the courts on a daily basis.

865
The purpose of legislation is often to change the culture and to create a climate in which attitudes are changed. We can all think of examples of legislation of that kind, whether it be equal opportunities legislation or statutory protection against unfair contract terms. I believe that this legislation will contribute to a marked change in behaviour. It is worth recognising that its impact will be limited so far as small businesses are concerned. As I understand it, the legislation will only apply as between business and business and will not apply to supplies or services rendered by small businesses to consumers.
The supposed difficulties in the way of this legislation have been canvassed from time to time. It has been said that it will be ineffective because dominant purchasers would respond by extending the credit period. I personally doubt whether this would be widespread, but if large purchasers adopted that cynical tactic, then no doubt adverse publicity would quickly flow and at least the supplier would know where it stood.
It is also said sometimes that the obligation to settle bills promptly will place a burden on small businesses themselves when in difficulty. But how can the difficulty of one business become an appropriate reason why it should unilaterally have the freedom to put another business which has fulfilled its side of the bargain into difficulties?
I know that the detail of the Bill will be scrutinised with care. It is clearly important that there must be a means of taking account of invoices which are legitimately unpaid because they are incorrect or the goods or services are inadequate. I also personally doubt whether it is desirable to have a limitation period as long as six years. I should have thought that creditors should be required to let their debtors know that they are claiming interest long before that period. In a statute designed to secure prompt payment, it surely seems reasonable to expect fairly prompt action by the creditor.
My noble friend Lord Home, in his thoughtful and constructive response to the Minister, raised the question of the invoice which was not sent promptly or not sent at all. The consultation paper says:
"It would be unreasonable for a business to charge interest on a late payment if it had not provided the debtor with the information necessary to make prompt payment".
There is a provision in Clause 6 which permits the remission of statutory interest but it is very general in terms. I would welcome the Minister's assurance that it is designed to cover situations where a bill is not sent accurately or promptly or where the goods are defective or there is some other valid reason for non-payment. At present, the clause is a charter for litigation because of the width and uncertainty of the terms in which it is drafted.
I echo the hope that there will be harmony between the statute and the directive which the European Commission intends to issue. This is clearly a concern to many of us here today. I should be glad if the Minister would explain why he is confident that harmony and compatibility between the two will exist.
866
In summary, I see this as a simple, highly desirable. overdue Bill which should be of particular value to the small businesses which play a vital and increasingly important part in our economy. I am also conscious of the precedents which we as citizens have to bear. If we are late in paying our taxes we have to pay interest to the revenue in overdue tax. I see irresistibly the same, perhaps even more, basic fairness in ensuring that the contractual debts from one business to another carry an appropriate rate of interest.
I sit down with the greater pleasure because I look forward keenly, as do all noble Lords, to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, 1 too rise with some nervousness to address such a wise gathering. But I take courage on two counts; first, because since my introduction I have been warmly welcomed by your Lordships from all sides of the House. You have given me advice and encouragement and offered me immediate warm friendship, for which I thank you. Secondly, I am emboldened because what I intend to say today is not based on any presumed knowledge of affairs of state, but from 40 years of experience as a retailer—I hope your Lordships are wondering. "How can he have been retailing for 40 years and look so young?"!
On the street markets of South Wales, when I was in my early teens, my late father, Sydney Stone, taught me how to trade. His philosophy was different from the majority of stallholders. He used to say: "To ensure your business survives, be kind to those who work for you; give value to your customers; and deal honourably with your suppliers of goods". When I subsequently joined Marks & Spencer, a global retailer where I have now spent over 30 years, I was pleased to discover that it too was founded on those same principles—on the formation of close, trusting, long-lasting, co-operative relationships with all of the companies with which we deal.
I mention to you my father's small business and my current employer, a large firm, by way of declaring my interest in the Bill. And if I repeat some of what has been said, it is because I feel that I should cite long experience in a transactional business. What I have found throughout my working life is that everyone benefits when two or more parties respect one another, do business with a trust and mutual understanding and accept each other's point of view. I am not so naive as to believe that to be complete altruism, but neither is it true that business has to be a battleground between winners and losers. It may be called enlightened self-interest, but we do care for our partners, and we have proved that that approach works.
In itself perhaps this Bill may not bring about prompt payment from the large to the small in every case. Government can create a legal framework within which business can improve commercial relations, but one must leave it to the companies themselves to realise that acting in good faith leads to increased business and

867
greater efficiency. Our company has practised partnership policies successfully for decades. We realised that it would be in our interests if those who supplied us were paid on the button, and in full, so that their cash flows would be healthy.
What we found as a result was that our suppliers worked hard to make our business thrive so that our lucrative business with them could grow. Eighty per cent. of our £5 billion clothing and homeware comes from 20 such suppliers. Nearly all of them have been with us for 25 years, over half for 40 years and we have traded with one, Dewhirst, for over 100 years. Today, whether our supplier is a major combine or a small firm in Dorset with only three permanent staff growing blueberries for us, we try to pay on time. That is the philosophy but yes, sometimes principles are not turned into practice. Despite our good intentions, we know from experience how easy it is for an invoice to get lost in the system.
The phasing-in of the Bill should provide an opportunity for large organisations to review their bureaucracy and ensure their systems work well. Scourging bureaucracy will not only eliminate their inefficiencies but it will be a God-send to their more vulnerable small specialist suppliers. Most innovative and entrepreneurial, fledgling British businesses manage their cash and credit on a knife edge.
I hope that the Bill does not lead some big firms to lengthen the payment terms in the contract or to try to exact a high discount for rapid payment. The prosperity of our small businesses is essential to our economy, and large businesses, banks and governments must each play a part in their development. I am pleased the Government recognise that.
Business Links and their equivalent in Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland are being encouraged to support small firms and to help them have proper credit management. I am told that the DTI has produced a guide to cashflow management with the Institute of Credit Management, soon to be available on the Internet. And yes, another important area supported by the Government is the British Standard for Prompt Payment, BS7890. which was developed with the CBI.
This issue is not just confined to business. For an integrated, cohesive society we must extend partnerships out of commerce and into the creative arts and sciences, where small companies have big cash-flow problems. I have been involved in the arts in recent years, particularly small arts organisations. Yes, mainly they want us Lo raise funds. But it is crucial for them to know how to find cash within their current income and expenditure. For that they need help in the form of management resources to produce business plans and financial strategies.
Let me give two examples from last autumn. A contemporary dance company with which I was involved—AMP—had a brilliant choreographer, talented performers and experienced technicians, but was in mortal danger with a deficit of £360,000. Some generous angels lent it some cash and, with financial management help, it is now virtually self-sufficient. In
868
my home village of Blackheath, a 100 year-old beautiful concert hall almost went to the wall. It was nearly torn down for the sake of a £50,000 deficit. It was owed money but could not collect it. It survived with a promised lottery grant and some local friends and professional cash management.
Not only are small arts organisations vulnerable: what about this country's record of failing to give help to our scientists and inventors? As a governor of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, I know that a growing portion of the funding for this fine research institute comes from its subsidiary, YEDA, in which businessmen help scientists to start up new business ventures. None of those flounders for lack of innovation; if they die, it is from lack of cash. Our own British scientific and artistic start-ups today are the source of our future income.
In America, small businesses with fewer than 100 people create two out of every three new jobs. Last year over a third of its venture capital investments went to start up new enterprises. In Europe less than one in eight succeed. One of the major reasons is the ease of access to cash in the USA for entrepreneurs. Our banking system is more risk averse. We are not America, but we can be less confrontational and co-operate by paying promptly.
Laws on paying on time go back much further than merely 1893. The Jewish Association for Business Ethics, with which I am involved, relates the code of ethics taught in biblical writing of our faith to current business practices. Paying your labourers or your suppliers late has always been seen as theft of the worst kind—robbing those dependent upon you. In Leviticus it says:
"Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning".
It will give me much pleasure also to cite one of four of our past chairmen to be welcomed by this House, the noble Lord, Lord Sieff of Brimpton, Marcus Sieff, who unfortunately is too ill to be here today. As the House knows, he is a man who has made many friends and has been successful at bringing together many partnerships in business, even across national borders in the Middle East to help peace. He has been a guide and mentor to me. In 1980, when I was his personal assistant, in his maiden speech he said:
"The creation of wealth for all to share demands a high working performance of everyone and needs co-operation, not confrontation … Conflict solves nothing and benefits nobody".—[Official Report, 4/6/80: col. 1443.]
We have even found it good to develop friendly relationships with our competitors. If I may say so. the long-standing warm relationship between the Sainsbury family and ourselves has been a source of much pleasure. We have co-operated in many of the interests I have referred to today. As your Lordships can see, we think alike. Forgive me if my remarks have wandered too widely. My purpose was to cite examples from personal experience where, in practice, increased prosperity has come from unselfish consideration of the needs of those who are vital to the success of your business. If you act with altruism pragmatically to help

869
your partners, in most cases ultimately it turns out that you and your company have practised enlightened self-interest. Remember every debtor is at some time a creditor. If we pay up promptly and get paid on time each of us and the whole economy will benefit.
As has been said, this Bill is not just about redressing a balance between the mighty global corporation and the defenceless small trader; it is an important element in a package of measures designed to change a culture and promote a better way of doing business.
4.49 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, the privilege of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, on his maiden speech falls to me. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that he gave us a most excellent and informative speech. The noble Lord obviously used the Christmas Recess to good effect. I have the crib so I know how old he is. He must have started his working life very young. As a managing director of Marks and Spencer, he will have a wealth of knowledge on business matters. I hope that he will be able to take part in the further stages of this Bill. It is so good to know that Marks and Spencer supports the prompt payment culture.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for introducing the Second Reading of the Bill. I take part as a fellow elect for a small business fellowship under the auspices of the Industry and Parliament Trust. Over the past 35 years I have been involved with a number of small service businesses, all of which have had to work on credit, not being paid until the particular service had been carried out. As small businesses we suffered late payment, which is a bad business practice. Particularly bad was payment of premiums when I was an insurance broker. The great game used to be to keep the broker waiting as long as possible despite our credit terms clearly shown on invoices. But we were well aware that other brokers could provide the same cover at the same premium, and if we pressed too hard we would undoubtedly lose the business at the next renewal date. Sometimes one had to wait until the client had a claim before he would pay the premium. The customer is always right; and if not right then is stronger than his service provider. Unless the service is unique and cannot be found elsewhere, I doubt that small service providers would ever dare threaten their customers with statutory interest for fear of losing their business.
I heard a story at the weekend about a company which gives a small taxi firm about 70 per cent. of its business but seemed only to pay twice a year, after the managing director used the service. The conversation apparently goes like this. Managing director: "Have we paid your bill recently, John?" Taxi owner: "No, sir". A rocket goes to the accounts department and the bill is paid, but it really is not good business practice.
My small farming partnership and estate cottages enterprise tries to pay valid invoices within 30 days. We usually succeed, as indeed do organisations which owe us money. But I am afraid I must report that a government department owes me money. I declare a possible interest in this Bill. The money is owed by
870
the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, being its contribution of £375 to me, a successful entrant to its excellent countryside premium scheme which seeks to preserve and enhance the environment by moving my farming activities back from a river bank and a water course. I note I paid the Grampian Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group on 3rd October 1997 and sent its receipted invoice to a named individual at the department shortly after that. I admit that the department did not actually say when it would pay and I suppose in my innocence I expected 30 days. But it is now 60 days overdue despite two chasers. The Minister may say that this is a statutory function made in course of government and not a commercial debt and so outwith the scope of the Bill. Maybe so, but it is a commercial debt as far as I am concerned as it will reduce an amount I have paid from a commercial account. Wherever it falls, it has been outstanding for far too long.
If central government departments and agencies, public limited companies and their large private subsidiaries pay their bills on time, this will be helpful and set a good example. We may get to the situation which exists in Sweden where accounts are paid between six and 10 days late as opposed to our dismal average of 23 days after the 30-day period. But small business is not entirely blameless. Credit management is either non-existent or shambolic. I welcome the Department of Trade and Industry's scheme to assist small firms in better credit management and the development of a modular national vocational qualification in credit management. I should probably declare an interest as president of the Institute of Certified Book-Keepers, an examining and standards setting body with 26,000 students and members. When the Bill becomes law we shall have to amend part of the syllabus of the intermediate exam dealing with credit management, and probably rewrite module seven—credit control—in our diploma in small business management.
In a small business it will be the book-keeper who will be the credit controller, ensuring that the business pays its bills on time, like PAYE and VAT, to departments that are not renowned for allowing much credit, and also ensuring that the business is paid money owed to it. I think the worst case I can remember was an account sent to me 13 months after goods had been supplied. But tradesmen regularly seem to render their accounts some months after they have carried out work. These accounts also seem to be on the high side and one wonders whether a percentage is added for late payment which has nothing to do with my reluctance to pay but everything to do with the tradesman's incompetence in getting his bills out. Accounts should be well laid out, show what service was carried out and when, and show clearly when due for payment. If an account becomes overdue, chase it immediately. Be pleasant but assertive. If an account is disputed, deal with the objection swiftly and ask for payment of the undisputed part immediately and the rest immediately the dispute is settled.
If government departments and big firms can improve their payment performance and small firms their credit management, there should be no need for recourse to statutory interest. But if the right is there, small

871
businesses will be ill-advised not to pursue outstanding payments in the belief that they are earning interest on the debt. The debtor may have no intention of paying the debt at all.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation. Having sat in the other place for a number of years, I lay claim to the fact that we are taking part in a debate which by comparison with those which occur in another place stands out. We have here people who speak from a lifetime's experience and who are certainly at the sharp end of the topic they are talking about. We have had a feast of expertise and humility from those of the business community who have spoken today. The two retailers, the noble Lords, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Stone, have told us frankly how they conduct their businesses. If all other businesses were conducted in the same spirit of fairness and justice, the problem we are debating would not exist at all. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, also brought to the debate his undoubted breadth of experience in dealing with problems. I particularly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who at one time was the manager of a very big business which then declined into a very small business. I refer to the National Coal Board, which later became British Coal. What we have had today is a feast of experience which I venture to suggest cannot be found in any other forum.
In rising to speak in the debate I declare some interests. None of them is directly financial but all are declared in part 3 of the register. The first interest I declare is that I speak with the support of the Co-operative movement. That movement has in it big and small businesses. The Co-operative Wholesale Society is a big business and has more than 18,000 employees. But within its network there are small societies such as the Allendale Society, which has 10 employees. There are gradations. The point I am making is that this Bill is not for big or small businesses but to provide equity and justice. It has been said more than once that it is intended to try to change the culture which apparently exists in this field.
I also declare an interest of a non-financial nature in raising the problems and concerns of small builders and their trade association. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, nodding. He and I attended one of its presentations some years ago when he was a Minister in the department. Regardless of what has been said about the concerns, whenever I listen to the representatives of small businesses, at the top of the list of their worries, besides the current political topic, is their concern at not being paid on time.
I do not make a political point and in my view this is not a political debate. The noble Earl, Lord Home, made an excellent speech. But he left me with the impression that he was far too defensive about the previous government's record. I and the House understand the problems. Over the 20 years or more that I have been in this House this problem has always existed. The solution that the Government have brought forward may not be the right one; it may need to be trimmed and altered as
872
we go along. Nevertheless, I believe that this proposed legislation responds fairly to a situation that should be tackled differently in the future.
A recent survey suggests that only one in 10 big British employers pay on time within an agreed contractual payment period. The Forum of Private Business reckons that at any one time private business within the United Kingdom is owed £20 million in late payments, a statistic referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Home. If that is the situation, and businesses are being denied by their suppliers, one needs to look at the solutions. The noble Earl said that we should be worried about those who deliberately withhold payment. It has yet to be quantified how many of those, as a policy, deliberately withhold payment. The former Deputy Prime Minister said that part of the way he conducted business was by delaying payment for as long as possible. That is not a very good example to the country or the business community.
Small businesses have been placed at a great disadvantage because, as has been said by more than one speaker, there is the fear that if they become too aggressive in demanding their rights they may very well lose the business on which they depend. I am not as sanguine as some who believe that this is not a real problem. It is, but it is one that can be put right. I notice that the Minister said in introducing this Bill that to exercise that right is voluntary; that it is not an automatic, statutory right, but it should be brought into being. It is a weapon to be used by those who feel they have been disadvantaged.
I am well aware that the move will not be welcomed because some people will argue that the Government are meddling in the business community. To the extent to which they may be at the margin with a further, tiny involvement, then so be it. The advantages of saving thousands of small businesses from bankruptcy make that a small criticism, to be borne with equanimity.
As regards late payment, I believe that it is a canker which can fester, and big businesses, most of which I categorise as honourable, will be the losers. As the noble Lords, Lord Stone and Lord Sainsbury, said, big businesses are not dependent on one supplier but on thousands of suppliers. They would not maintain a relationship for very long if they had a bad reputation as a receiver of such services by treating those they relied on in a bad way.
I believe that there are many spheres of activity that will benefit from these provisions. The Federation of Master Builders tells me that it,
"is emphatic that more needs to be done in legislative terms to curb unpaid debts which inherently prevail in the construction industry".
If the Government and House are to listen to the views of those outside, I say to noble Lords that we ought to respect the views of those who are at the sharp end. The construction industry is difficult to manage, to guide and to organise. But the organised voice of the Federation of Master Builders tells us that that is its way.
I declare an interest as the honorary secretary of the All-Party Group for the Retail Trade. The British Retail Consortium, in a letter to the President of the Board of Trade, said that it,

873
"felt it would be unlikely that small businesses, dependent on custom from large firms, will charge interest for late payment because of the fear of losing trade".
Is it not terrible that the nexus between small and large companies is an element of fear? It is not necessary for anyone here to spell that out because we can see the possibility. More than one noble Lord has said that this legislation may not be the answer. The noble Earl, Lord Home, said it will have very little effect on the margins. He may be right, but we shall see. But if the Government produce legislation for the business community which is to be used and not abused, that is a very good thing.
The basis of the Bill is quite clear. The statutory right to claim interest on late payments provides a stick. For the first time there will be a financial disincentive to settling bills long after they are due. The carrot, however, is the achievement of a fair payment culture over the long term. That must be good for large and small businesses and for those who do and those who do not pay on time. The House should welcome the Bill. I believe that the business community will be fair and equitable and recognise, whether one calls them black sheep, cowboys or anything else, that there are those in business who need to be reminded that business ought to be ethical and based on co-operation and give and take. The Government should be congratulated. I certainly support the Bill.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by joining in the congratulations to the galaxy of maiden speakers who have addressed us this afternoon, each one of whom made a contribution greatly enhancing this debate.
This legislation is long overdue. It is 20 years since the Law Commission completed its work on the topic and, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Home, I suggest that "premature" is not an appropriate description for it. The need for legislation remains obvious in order to help traders with their problems of vital cash flow, particularly the relatively small trader dependent on one substantial customer.
In the years since the Law Commission reported, we have learnt more about the knock-on effects of late payment and the general ineffectiveness of voluntary initiatives, including those relied on by the previous government as a reason for not legislating in this area. The previous government blandly suggested that there was insufficient evidence of a problem or that late payment was putting companies and small businesses out of operation. My reply would have been to suggest that one spends any Wednesday morning in the companies court listening to the depressing catalogue of small companies meeting their fate by being wound up.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. that the Bill gets the balance about right. Although government departments have tried to lead by example with prompt payment of undisputed debts, I suspect that British Standard 7890 has had little impact beyond the great and the good.
874
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, drew attention to an important limitation on the new remedy in the Bill in that each of the contracting parties must be,
"acting in the course of a business".
That is a phrase found in other statutes which has generated case law in some marginal situations but which now seems to be reasonably well understood and is capable of covering the one-off transaction or the transaction out of the usual run of business for a particular trader.
The noble Lord, Lord Borne, drew attention to the excepted contracts in Clause 2(3). I would add to the question asked by the noble Lord by asking what is meant by,
"a contract intended to operate by way of … charge or other security",
in sub-paragraph (c). Does that mean that a contract with any form of security is excepted, or does the phrase,
"intended to operate by way or,
have some limiting effect?
If a statutory right to interest is to be part of the solution for late payments, it is important that the legislative scheme is essentially simple and consistent. The Bill tries to achieve both simplicity and consistency. Clause 4 states the day from which interest starts to run. However, Clause 4(2) enables the contracting parties to agree some other day. Concerns have been expressed that the dominant party will persuade smaller traders to agree to substantial extensions beyond the 30-day limit in the Bill. Clause 8 deals skilfully with the ability of the parties to exclude or vary the right to statutory interest, but I am not sure whether it would restrict the extension of the time for payment to, say, 60 days or 90 days.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the operation of Clause 8 on excessive credit periods. With respect, that does not tell us what is likely to fall foul of Clause 8 as an excessive credit period. Perhaps there is room for the introduction of a statutory presumption that a purported agreement to extend the 30 days by more than a further 30 days does not leave the supplier with a substantial remedy for late payment and therefore falls foul of Clause 8.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the problem of late or inaccurate invoicing. Clearly, there is a problem, particularly with unclear running account statements. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, pointed to one solution in the remission provisions of Clause 6 in which the conduct of the supplier can lead to the remission of part, if not all, of the statutory interest. The word "conduct" is defined as including "any act or omission". I suggest that Clause 4 might provide a simpler solution because time does not run (even beyond the 30-day period) unless and until the purchaser has had notice of the amount of the debt.
As to the rate of interest, understandably the Bill does not say what is to be the rate of interest. It provides for the Secretary of State to set a rate, which one would expect to be a realistic rate linked to the base rate and to whatever the rate at which the banks are lending at the time, so that the suppliers of goods and services can

875
be compensated for what they have to borrow and so that purchasers are not tempted to delay payment because of any significant difference between what their banks may charge and the statutory rate. In that context, I share the anxiety to learn what is expected from the proposed European directive.
The word "penal" has been mentioned in that connection. That word has arbitrary overtones in English civil law. The noble Earl, Lord Home, referred to malicious non-payment or malicious default. Perhaps that is not a particularly helpful way of looking at things. The law, certainly in the equitable jurisdiction, already provides for what is called the "wilful default rate of interest". That rate of interest is above the rate normally provided by the court in order to ensure that no profit is made from a breach of an obligation. Perhaps rather than using the word "penal" (with its unfortunate overtones at least in English law), we should try to identify precisely what any rate of interest seeks to achieve in deterring the late payment of bills which have been properly rendered.
In this respect, I am concerned by the word "may" in Clause 5(2), which provides that the Secretary of State,
"may set the rate of statutory interest with a view to—
(a) protecting suppliers whose financial position makes them particularly vulnerable if they are paid late;
(b) deterring the late payment of qualifying debts".
Surely the main purpose of setting the rate is to do exactly both those things and, in particular, to deter. Indeed, surely the word "may" should be "shall" or there should be some other form of emphasis in Clause 5(2) to indicate the basis upon which interest will be set.
Clause 5 also provides the alternative for the Secretary of State to set the rate by prescribing a formula. I do not understand why this may be necessary and I hope that it will not be the chosen way of dealing with the matter. Apparently straightforward interest calculations can cause confusion enough for some people, including mathematically challenged lawyers who sometimes have to formulate claims. Statutory formulae, even if not as complex as those used in the areas of money lending and consumer credit, will cause more confusion and dispute. I suggest that they should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Finally, on the question of setting the appropriate rate, I hope, again in the interests of simplicity and consistency, that there will be some definite correlation between the statutory rate and the rate normally provided for judgments, which has been only 8 per cent. since February 1993 and which, according to the recent consultation paper from the Lord Chancellor's Department, is not to be amended. Of course, it is to be hoped that the new provisions will deter litigation, but I suggest that it will be a little curious if the statutory rate is 8 per cent. above base rate while the judgment rate, once a judgment has been obtained, is only 8 per cent. Perhaps some consideration could be given to the convergence of the two rates.
In the context of that consultation by the Lord Chancellor's Department, rather than directly under this Bill, the other question to be addressed will be whether
876
the new statutory interest will affect the value of an action for the purpose of various jurisdictional and other limits in the county courts, including arbitration. Liquidated interest claims have an irritating habit of just tipping the claim from one financial limit to another, sending the lawyer off on an unsatisfactory hunt for the elusive answer to the question of whether that matters for the purposes of the particular limit concerned. That is part of the wider question, technical but important, of whether there is a separate right of action to interest as distinct from the principal debt. That has implications for the questions of assignment and limitation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, referred.
As far as concerns Clause 15(2) and the phased introduction of the provisions of this Bill, the reasons for phasing and the proposed order of priorities were generally welcomed in the consultation exercise and there is perhaps no real basis for opposing the principle. However, I should prefer to see at least a definite overall time limit for full implementation to be stated on the face of the Bill so that there is no temptation to let matters drift. Likewise, the proposed two-year interval appears to be rather more generous than might have been hoped for, particularly if the 50-employee limit is used to define small businesses. That may be a source of difficulty for businesses with a fluctuating workforce that runs at about the 50-employee level.
I am sure that I am not alone in having received a helpful briefing paper from the Fair Payment Group. That body makes the point that phasing may be a source of considerable uncertainty, and that if phasing is applied it is vital that the subsequent phases are not conditional but are followed through automatically. It also suggests that accelerating the transitional period and reducing each phase to a year has the merit of decreasing the period during which businesses will face additional complexity in identifying which, if any, of their trading partners are subject to the provisions. A reduced period will also reduce the potential for unfair competition at the margin, which is a problem for all thresholds.
We welcome the Bill. Simple common sense suggests that its provisions have great potential for priming the economy, and we should not lose the opportunity to do our best to ensure that it works.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I should also like to congratulate and welcome all the maiden speakers who have spoken in the debate this afternoon. It has been extremely useful to have this debate and to hear noble Lords. It was also particularly surprising to hear so many noble Lords speak on the subject of their interest, which was mainly supermarkets. The noble Lords, Lord Graham, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Stone, referred to their supermarket interests. At one moment I thought that the Labour Party was harbouring a cartel. However, I observed that the noble Lord, Lord Borne, was in his place. He would ensure that none of that went on on the Back Benches.

877
I am sorry to strike a rather discordant note in this afternoon's deliberations. This is a Bill whose aims I applaud but whose reasons for existence I do not. I wish that we did not have to deal with this Bill. I begin with a quotation:
"In the end, it is you and you alone who will determine whether or not your business thrives and whether our economy becomes more competitive and our country more prosperous".
That is a good quote and few of us would disagree with it. It is the kind of quote that I could have made myself, and probably have done in the past. The surprise is not that it is not one of mine but that it comes from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, Barbara Roche. How strange, therefore, that soon after the publication of the extremely good document about the development of business links this Bill should come along, which is regulatory, bureaucratic, difficult to understand and takes away from businesses the ability to make decisions to enhance their own competitiveness.
The Government have decided that this is the best way forward. This Bill is a spin-doctor's dream. Take a perceived problem which has a certain amount of popular appeal and then provide a legislative solution which is the answer to all our prayers. So far so good, until one has to put it into practice and produce a Bill to deal with it. I believe that far from resolving the problems faced by small businesses the Bill will add to many of their difficulties. Think how many small firms do not employ 40 or 50 people but under five or which are small traders who often have to send out their own bills or ask their wives or husbands to do so. The extra worry now is whether they will be breaking the conditions of the Bill or whether they have inadvertently failed to agree to charge interest when they should have done so. If they decide to do so, what is the correct rate? How do they find out about it and how do they apply it? Those are the real problems which this Bill raises.
We are equally opposed to the late payment of debt. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to fairness and justice. I agree with him, as does the Conservative Party. That was demonstrated over the past 18 years when we were in government. But there is no obvious solution to the problem of the late payment of debts. That is why it has taken some 165 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded us, since the earliest development of discussions and law in this area. If it was such a good idea to bring in a piece of legislation like this it would have happened a long time ago. Rather like reform of your Lordships' House, if it was so easy to do it would have been done long before now.
I also agree with the ethical question to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred. A late payment is a bad thing and should be discouraged, but there are other ways to tackle the problem, to which I shall turn in a moment. There is no evidence that legislation will work. Indeed, there is substantial evidence internationally that legislation makes the problem worse because it extends the overall amount of time taken before bills are paid. Further, there is no evidence that there is a real need for the legislation. After all, there is no difference of opinion between us
878
that businesses are currently extremely successful, that the economy is booming and that people are making money and improving their margins and the quality of their businesses. Where does this Bill come from, bar the need to put something easy and presentable into the election manifesto?
There are many people in industry, particularly the small business sector, who support the need for a late payment of debt. Like my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, I salute the work done by Stan Mendham. For a long time Stan Mendham was a lone voice in small firms interest groups calling for this kind of measure. I do not believe that legislation is the solution and this Bill is perhaps the worst of all possible options. The Bill is bureaucratic, complicated and discriminatory and the law of unintended effects will apply. It is bureaucratic because smaller firms will not wish to do the work that this Bill implies. It is complicated because many firms will not understand its provisions and how to make the provisions work well. It is discriminatory because of the differences that will now apply in law between small firms and big firms. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that just because a business employed 49 people it did not mean that it was necessarily a small firm or that if it employed 51 people it meant that it was a large firm. There are plenty of examples of very small firms with substantial turnover which no one would regard as very small firms and firms which employ 100 or 200 people and are highly work intensive but have all the hallmarks of smaller firms. That definition will give the Government a great deal of trouble. Why have the Government not put this definition on the face of the Bill? When will we see the amendment that brings it into the Bill? If there is to be a fundamental difference of treatment between large and small firms we should see it spelt out in legislation.
What about the law of unintended effects? All the evidence from overseas that I have seen shows that by introducing legislation one increases the amount of time taken by people to pay their bills. They increase the credit terms, but pay their bills more on time. That does nothing to improve cash flow, but it does a great deal to improve the figures cosmetically.
The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, made the point about cyclical businesses which receive their incomes at odd times of the year or rarely during the course of the year. Such businesses include agriculture and other rural industries which may rely on harvests. How will they be affected? What provisions are there in the Bill to protect such industries? There are many other industries such as transport and others affected by chains of contractors and subcontractors, most notably the construction industry mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Far be it from me to remind the Minister about the situation in the law. I understand that banisters wait a long time before they are paid. Will the Bill apply to them? Will they oblige their solicitors to pay them on time? I should also like to ask about those who object to charging interest on moral, religious, or conscience grounds. Will there be any exclusion in the Bill for them?

879
Much has been said about statistics. Many studies have been made over the years. The Minister mentioned some of them. Of course he mentioned only those which favoured his case. There was no mention of the studies done by Grant Thornton, or Intrum Justitia of Amsterdam looking at the international question. Those studies are confusing and contradictory.
I could not resist smiling when the Minister reminded us of the words of the first competitiveness White Paper since I was the Minister who talked Michael Heseltine, who was then President of the Board of Trade, into ensuring that there was no commitment to a legislative right to payment of commercial debt, not that he needed a great deal of convincing, because he could see, as I could, that many of the cosmetic attractions of a statutory right to interest did not stand up to much scrutiny.
When I was in the DTI, I spent a great deal of time travelling around the country talking to small firms. I agree with those who said that one of their first concerns was the late payment of debt. However, in relation to some of the problems caused by a statutory right to interest, they were among the first to say that there may be different ways to deal with the problem rather than the legislative solution. The Government have made a classic mistake. They have looked at the first solution offered to them and accepted it hook, line and sinker.
I greatly regret that there has been no appraisal of the alternatives; for example, to encourage the use of the codes of good practice. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how well that works in government departments. If he has the figures, will he tell us what is the record of, say, the MoD in paying its bills on time? If he does not have that information perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me.
What about quicker justice? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, wrote a report on that subject not long ago which was broadly accepted by the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He did not have time to put the recommendations into effect. Have the Government looked seriously at improving the whole basis of small claims and speeding up payment of debt'? Do they agree that that is a far better way to go than to produce a Bill such as this? The real problem, as I have discovered from my research, is created, first, by a lack of proper credit controls and, secondly, by the difficulties caused by the recession of the early 1990s.
On the subject of credit control, for companies that have improved their ability to send out invoices and chase them up, the late payment of debt has diminished substantially. I believe that the Minister will agree with me that, with the growth of organisations such as Business Links which give proper advice and training to firms, the problem has decreased substantially over the past few years.
The problems caused by recessions are obvious. During 1990 to 1992 late payment of debt became a real problem. It was also a matter of survival for many firms. Does the Minister believe that this proposed legislation
880
will have any effect on that? Like the banks, many firms learnt a great deal from the experience of the recession. I greatly hope that none of those problems will recur.
Many noble Lords mentioned the difficulties which will now be associated with the European directive. Will the Minister tell us why it is that while we have the presidency of the Council for six months we are introducing this Bill? Should we not be using our time in the Council of Ministers to promote the idea—if that is what is required—of a European directive, and to make the touch as light as possible?
Finally, I hope that the Minister will take note of the drafting points made by his noble friend Lord Borrie and my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. Sadly, the Bill shows all the worst aspects of the Government. It is a Bill about presentation and expectation. It will provide nothing. I doubt whether it will be a force for good. The Government will regret this measure. Unfortunately, ultimately it will be the small firms themselves which will pick up the bill. We shall play a full part in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the suggestions for improvement that have been made during the debate.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I agree with at least one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said: his commendation of the maiden speeches that we have heard today. They were welcome to the House, and I shall come to them later. I agreed with virtually nothing else that he said. He was out of tune with many of his own colleagues, the mood of the House, the responses to the consultation document, and, characteristically, generally out of tune. I always like his excess of charm and talent so that whenever he sees the top he can never refrain from going over it. That he undoubtedly accomplished today in his forthright condemnation of this measure.
We now of course know that the noble Lord was the miscreant in the government who persuaded Mr. Michael Heseltine, when he was President of the Board of Trade, not to embark on this, although in the light of some of the comments that have been made in the debate about the statements made by Mr. Michael Heseltine, as someone who had engaged in business, when commending late payment, I do not think that he needed much persuasion. Therefore, if this is a triumph for the noble Lord, so be it; let him bask in it.
There is overwhelming evidence as to why the plight of small and medium-sized enterprises in particular needs to be met. I do not dissent from the fact that there are some anxieties about the Bill. I hope that, together with those who support its principles, we shall be able to work towards improving it. That is the purpose of consideration of the Bill in this place in Committee and at later stages.
However, I wish to point out one aspect at the outset; the Bill does not impose any mandatory obligations. It offers a tool, an instrument, which is available to small and medium-sized enterprises. I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Home, and

881
I commend him for a good speech. but he made that cardinal error. This Bill does not impose an obligation on anyone to claim interest, and that is clear.
I turn to the maiden speeches and to some of the comments which were made by my noble friends. I listened with great interest to the assertion of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury that he was not unused to dealing with eccentric issues in his business; for instance, the ripeness of avocado pears. He will not be disappointed to learn that from time to time eccentric issues are raised in this place. For example. in due course we may debate the importance of grandparents and beg to move for Papers. If that ever comes to pass, it is likely to receive attention at least from "Today in Parliament", because little else does.
My noble friend Lord Sainsbury and his colleague, my noble friend Lord Stone, come from two vastly important businesses and speak with great authority. However, I heard my noble friend Lord Stone say that people ask him how, after 40 years as a trader, he can look so young. I can assure him that now he is a Member of this House we will put an end to all that! The co-operation that has been enjoined between Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury over the years—we heard about it in their speeches—will become even easier as we witness a new phase in that development on our Back Benches.
Their contribution was important and is not to be lightly dismissed, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—
Lord Strathclyde: No.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord says no, but he rejected their arguments, which were strongly in favour of the Bill and the principles underlying it. My noble friend Lord Graham spoke from considerable experience of the Co-operative Movement and an interest in the construction industry. He, too, thought that there were overwhelming reasons for commending the Bill to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, comes from a background of considerable commercial experience. I am pleased that that continues, notwithstanding his retirement some years ago from the National Coal Board, where he was a most outstanding chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, speaks as a banker but I remember him best as a distinguished Silk. All those noble Lords made the point that, in principle, the Bill is desirable. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot let the noble Lord get away with that. I hope that nothing I said gave the impression that I did not entirely welcome the speeches of the maiden speakers. It is a natural courtesy of this House to do so. I rejected their basic argument and it is interesting that the noble Lord has repeated the point. All those noble Lords spoke from the point of view of big business. I wish to protect the interests of smaller firms. Big business can employ another credit controller, someone else to organise the accounts. That
882
is the way to deal with the problem. However, small firms cannot and that is the point to which the noble Lord must address himself.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Now he says it!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is making life more difficult for himself moment by moment. The fact is that each noble Lord dealt with small and medium-sized enterprises. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, specifically dealt with that point in his notable contribution to the debate. I do not in any sense seek to say that the noble Lord was being offensive to them. Of course he was not; it is not in his nature to be deliberately offensive. However, the fact remains that they disagree with him, as do I.
We heard a notable maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, who has considerable experience of the Booksellers Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He, too, declared that the Bill was justified in principle.
I wish to turn to some of the criticisms that have been made. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I do not deal with every point. Where appropriate, I shall write to noble Lords. I wish to examine the speeches with care because they were helpful—even those which were critical. The noble Earl, Lord Home, made play with the responses of business representative organisations to the previous government's consultation on the needs of small firms. Apparently the organisations to which he alluded did not favour a statutory right to interest. Perhaps that was so; I was not party to the consultation and I do not know. Due to my lack of knowledge, I certainly do not wish to refute what he was saying.
However, we consulted widely on our proposals set out in the Green Paper and that represented a different story. We did not rush into the matter, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. There was a profound and important consultation. Presented with properly devised policies, we found significant support. I set that out previously and I do not propose to repeat it. I commend to the House the summary of responses which we published on 11th December.
The noble Earl also mentioned experience abroad, specifically in Spain. However, that missed the point, too, because the measure is about expectations and risk. The legislation is about addressing problems which affect cash-flow management. It is imperative that we do whatever we can to stamp out late payment. That has been the burden of the argument across the House today, even from those who oppose what we are doing.
My noble friend Lord Sainsbury cogently set out experience in the Nordic countries, where a right to interest already exists, but we must make our own experience in this matter. We are not presenting the legislation as a panacea and there is nothing compulsory about it, as I have indicated. It is complementary to all the other measures which have been taken and the systems which have been proposed to enable small firms to better manage their finances. The legislation is only a tool, and I agree that proper credit and cash-flow

883
management is also extremely important, as is an efficient court system. The use of the small claims court and the procedures involved are being investigated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
My noble friend asked why an interest rate is not mentioned on the face of the Bill. I should point out that, in drafting legislation, we must ensure that it can stand the test of time. That is why, very often, we must rely on statutory instruments in order fully to implement the legislation. I am not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. The formula is not stated in the Bill because it may not be incumbent on the Bank of England to announce the base rate of interest in the future. If that is so, we may have to announce the rate periodically. But we should like to pin the rate to the base rate if that is at all possible.
Of course, it is necessary to reflect on experience. That is why we are undertaking the research project with Bradford University to which I referred earlier. I assure the noble Earl that we shall be publishing a draft order in relation to the commencement of this Bill which deals with that matter, and we shall be able to consider it in Committee. Therefore, I hope that that gives the noble Earl some reassurance.
I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I welcome his general support for the Bill and I shall take very careful note of the constructive ideas which he put forward. We have not finished consulting on the Bill but we shall continue to do so as it is being considered in this House and in another place. It should not be a matter of real political controversy. There may be technical matters on which we need to consult. Indeed, I have consulted with representatives of business during the course of the past few days.
The noble Earl asked how the Government will deal with any inconsistencies in relation to the proposed EU directive on late payment. Indeed, a number of your Lordships asked a similar question. It is likely to be of theoretical interest at least for the foreseeable future. We have been in consultation with the Commission and have been led to believe that our Bill will not require further legislation if the directive is adopted. But there is a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Home. The directive has not yet been published and we have not yet seen a draft of it, but it looks as though it is somewhat behind time. With the processes which must be undertaken within the European Union, it is not likely to be enacted within the foreseeable future. I believe that it will take rather longer even than the whole of the period that we are contemplating for the phasing in of this legislation. I hope that that will not be the case but it is the likelihood. But again, I hope that what I have said is reassuring to the House.
I turn now to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Borrie on the directive. The Bill includes powers that should enable it to take on board most possible changes which the directive may bring forward. Clause 5(2) is drafted to ensure that consistency with the directive can be ensured but also to ensure that, if the advice of business and Bradford University is that the rate of interest needs to be a deterrent, we can provide such a rate.
884
My noble friend suggested also eliminating the first phase of the legislation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The legislation would then commence by giving small businesses the right to claim interest against all their commercial customers, including other small businesses. In my opening remarks, I explained the rationale for phasing in: it is to ensure that small businesses are given a reasonable opportunity to develop their own payment management systems before they become subject to claims for interest. The Government, with the private sector, are pursuing another range of measures to help them to do so, and I do not propose to go into that again.
I should point out that something like 87 per cent. of business respondents to our Green Paper who expressed a view supported our phasing proposals and 85 per cent. agreed with the timetable. As I have already indicated, we shall bring forward a draft commencement order in time for discussion in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, noted the performance of the public sector in meeting bills on time. We recognise that the public sector should lead by example. We propose to require all government departments, agencies and local authorities to pay on time and if they do not, they will be subject to the provisions of the Bill before the House today in relation to commercial contracts. We shall publish tables of the payment performance of central and local government. We have published recently a league table of the payment performance by departments for the financial year ending March 1997. The fact is that the majority of departments paid more than 97 per cent. of their bills on time. I do not claim credit for this Government for that. The previous government sought to impose that obligation on their departments.
All departments have signed to the CBI Prompt Payers Code and the British Standard for Prompt Payment, BS7890, has also been adopted.
The noble Lord also raised the legitimate concern that the Bill does not allow for end-of-month billing arrangements like BACS. I assure the noble Lord that it is our intention that such billing, where it is agreed by both parties to the contract, should still be permitted. I refer the noble Lord to Clause 14(2).
My noble friend Lord Borrie questioned whether it was necessary to prevent contracting out of the legislation. We understand that concern. But cash flow risk has a cost for the entire economy and must be addressed. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend that, if contracting out were allowed, there must be a risk that small businesses would be bullied into accepting contracts which do not provide a remedy for late payment. That should not happen.
My noble friend raised also the matter of the treatment of conditional sales and hire purchase agreements. Those have been excluded because they are used to grant authorised credit and usually provide for interest payments on default of the periodic payments being made on time. The supplier is normally more powerful than the customer and can insist on interest. In contrast, hire agreements may be used to provide goods for short-term projects and may not include provisions

885
for late payments. We are giving consideration to excepting longer term hire arrangements where the asset is provided for much or all of its economic life span, as those agreements are on a par with those for authorised credit.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, Clause 6 is designed to provide remission of interest where the creditor's conduct makes it unjust to require interest. That will cover circumstances of incorrect invoices, tardy responses to queries, being unavailable to receive payment and so on. But it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of circumstances in which remission should be available. The noble Lord would probably concede that. But Clause 4(4)(b) also provides that the statutory credit period of 30 days does not start to run unless the debtor has notice of the amount due.
The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, raised the fear that suppliers would be afraid to claim interest from their customers. Of course there is a risk of that but I believe that the customers will be slow simply to cut off a supplier because of that particular issue. It is costly; it is bureaucratic; and it is difficult to find good suppliers just like that. I believe practice will ensure that that fear is much greater than the reality.
The Federation of Master Builders was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Graham. I assure him that I believe that payment will improve shortly within the building industry. There is a scheme introduced by the Department of the Environment and our scheme here is complementary to that.
I do not have time to go on and I have spoken for long enough in a wind-up speech. However, a number of important points were raised which, I assure the House, we shall consider in depth both before Committee and during the Committee stage in the Moses Room within the course of the next few weeks.
This measure has been mooted for some time. It is supported strongly by small business. We have sought to limit the restrictions on freedom of contract to the barest minimum consistent with the aims of the Bill. It is an important step in reducing business risk and improving the competitiveness of the country as a whole. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. While this is a short Bill—just eight clauses—it is concerned with combating terrorism in Northern Ireland. The House is familiar with the emergency legislation, having debated it many times in the past.
886
Noble Lords will understand the importance and the impact of the Bill before them this evening. Successive Emergency Provisions Acts have aimed to strike an appropriate balance between ensuring that the operational needs of the security forces and the criminal justice system in countering terrorism and protecting the community are met while at the same time ensuring that the rights of individuals who find themselves subject to the operation of the provisions are appropriately protected. They have also sought to meet our international obligations under the various conventions. These instruments embody principles which we share and respect, and our compliance demonstrates to the wider world our concern to protect civil liberty while still responding robustly to terrorist violence. The changes which the Bill proposes, and which I shall describe, are intended to adjust that balance still more finely in the light of changing circumstances.
The Bill is the second of three Northern Ireland Bills which the Government are bringing forward this Session. The others deal with parades and marches and reforms to policing. Together the Bills form a package of measures aimed at improving community confidence in the handling of security, policing and public order related issues. At the same time they aim to enhance the ability of the Government, police and others to tackle effectively the difficulties which exist in these areas. The RUC has been consulted about the measures and the police are in agreement with the provisions in the Bill.
Sadly, the period since Christmas in Northern Ireland has been overshadowed by a number of terrorist murders. On 27th December the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) murdered Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) leader Billy Wright within the confines of the Maze prison. In retaliation, the LVF have murdered three Roman Catholics. Seamus Dillon was shot dead and three others, including a 14 year-old boy, were injured at the Glengannon Hotel in Dungannon on the evening of 27th December. Edmund Treanor and five others were wounded in a shooting attack on patrons in the Clifton Tavern on Cliftonville Road in Belfast on New Year's Eve. Mr. Treanor died of his injuries in the early hours of 1st January. The latest victim, Terence Enwright, who was at the Belfast club where he worked as a doorman, was gunned down in the early hours of yesterday morning. There have been other incidents—a large car bomb in Banbridge, thankfully made safe by the security forces, and a shooting attack in Fermanagh, to name but two—all of which have been deliberately mounted to try to sabotage the peace process. The groups claiming responsibility for the majority of these evils acts—namely, the INLA and the LVF—have refused to declare any ceasefire. While they are smaller than the main groups, they, and others who have not declared a ceasefire—for example, the Continuity IRA—still represent a threat, as they have shown. Their purpose is wholly negative; they have nothing to offer the people of Northern Ireland; they will not be allowed to succeed.
The security forces will not relax their vigilance against terrorism, whatever its source. Police investigations into all these incidents are under way:

887
arrests and charges have already taken place. There have been finds both north and south of the border. That vital work will continue.
The only way to resolve Northern Ireland's problems is through dialogue, which is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has done everything in her power to ensure as full participation as possible in the talks which resumed today. At her meeting with prisoners at the Maze Prison last Friday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said:
"Recent acts of sectarian violence have once again left the people of Northern Ireland very fearful for the future. We will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to combat the threat of terrorism wherever it comes from. But the long term defeat of terrorism requires more than a commitment to support the efforts of the security forces. It requires a proper political settlement that is agreed between political representatives and widely supported on both sides of the community. Such a political settlement must address the issues and relationships which are of concern to both sides of the community. The talks process is designed to allow these and all other issues of concern to any participant to be discussed and resolved. It gives all sides an opportunity to achieve the goals which are of great importance to them without abandoning the values and principles they hold dear".
I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House would echo those sentiments.
On 18th November 1997, during the Bill's Second Reading in another place, my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Adam Ingram, said of the peace process:
"The most difficult tasks lie ahead. It would be misplaced optimism to underestimate the challenge that faces the two Governments and all the parties engaged in the talks. They will require vision and courage in their quest for peace".—[Official Report, Commons. 18/11/97; col. 168.]
It is against that background that the House considers the Bill this evening.
The Bill has two main purposes: to ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to have available the measures that they need to counter terrorism; and to ensure that the rights of those who are affected by the operation of the counter terrorism provisions are appropriately protected. It extends by two years the life of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which otherwise would expire in August this year. The Bill also makes a small number of important amendments to the existing provisions.
Successive versions of the Emergency Provisions Act have existed since the early 1970s. The provisions are exceptional. Parliament's consideration of their renewal each year, as required by statute, and the introduction, as necessary, of replacement versions of the Act, have proved controversial. That is particularly so when debates on the provisions have taken place during a time of ceasefire. I wish to make it clear, however, that while my party has objected in the past to particular aspects of the Emergency Provisions Act, it has never questioned the need for effective counter-terrorism legislation. For precisely that reason—the need to have effective counter-terrorism legislation—the Government announced in October last year their intention to present proposals to replace the Emergency Provisions Act and the UK-wide Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary
888
Provisions) Act with permanent UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation. They will publish their proposals in the form of a consultation paper. Your Lordships will be glad to note that work on the paper is well in hand, although some further work needs to be done before it can be issued.
The preparation of the paper has been considerably assisted by the report published in October 1996 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Your Lordships will recall that the noble and learned Lord's report was predicated on there being lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Even against that background, his conclusion was that permanent counter-terrorism laws would be needed. I submit that there can be no question that the main provisions of the Emergency Provisions Act must be kept in place until they can be superseded by new, permanent legislation.
The legislation will be sufficiently flexible to be able to address the changing situation in Northern Ireland and the constantly changing nature of terrorism world-wide. The Bill before your Lordships this evening would achieve that short-term goal. It would keep the emergency provisions in place. subject, as usual, to annual renewal next year and the year after, if necessary, until 24th August of the year 2000.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. As it is short, your Lordships may find it useful—and, I hope, not too tedious—if I explain its provisions clause by clause. Clause 1 does two things. It extends the life of the temporary provisions of the Act—that is to say, all of its provisions other than those that deal with extra-territorial offences and supplementary matters—from 15th June 1997 to 15th June 1999. It extends the life of the Act as a whole from 24th August 1998 to 24th August of the year 2000. The temporary provisions of the Act are currently subject to annual renewal. They have been continued in force by order until 15th June of this year. Thus, if Clause 1 were enacted unamended, and before 15th June, there would be no need for a similar order to be made this year. A further order would, however, be required in June next year, 1999, and in June the following year, 2000, were it considered necessary to continue the temporary provisions in force until the Act repealed itself in August 2000. I should add that the Secretary of State would retain the discretion she currently enjoys to suspend by order any of the temporary provisions at any time. Were she to consider that circumstances warranted it, she would act accordingly. That is to say, if during the life of the current Act a political settlement were achieved, it would be open to the Secretary of State, when she judged it right to do so, to allow such provisions to lapse.
The effect of Clause 1 is that subject to periodic renewal, as I have described, the following features of the existing Act would be retained: the schedule of terrorist offences; the mode of trial for such offences known as Diplock courts, together with associated safeguards including written judgments and automatic rights of appeal, and the different arrangements for admissibility and onus of proof; the additional powers of arrest, search and seizure for the police and Army; the specific offences against public security and public

889
order, including offences relating to involvement with proscribed organisations; the regulatory provisions for the private security industry in Northern Ireland; the regime for terrorist suspects held under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in the holding centres and the related safeguards in the codes of practice governing their detention; and the appointment of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures.
The Bill makes a number of changes to the existing Act. These are in line with commitments given by my party and consistent with the aim of ensuring that, as far as it is sensible to do so, the treatment of persons charged with terrorist crime mirrors the treatment of persons charged with ordinary crime.
I turn to Clause 2. This amends Schedule 1 to the existing Act so that none of the offences listed in Clause 2 will any longer be automatically tried without a jury. Some offences are already subject to existing arrangements whereby only offences which are connected with the emergency are tried by a Diplock court—that is, by a judge sitting without a jury. The Government would wish to see eventually a return to the normal system of jury trial for all criminal offences, including terrorist offences. That is not possible at present because of the prevailing risk of jury intimidation. Criminal justice practitioners advise that jury intimidation continues to be a very real and present risk where the crime committed has terrorist or sectarian connections.
Schedule 1 to the Act provides a list of offences which are commonly perceived as being likely to be committed by terrorists. These are known as "scheduled offences". While this is the case, it also confers upon the Attorney-General limited discretion to "certify out" for jury trial certain of those offences, depending on the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed. The Bill extends the application of that discretion by making it possible for more scheduled offences to be considered in the first instance by the Attorney-General, who may certify them out. Examples of offences which, by virtue of the Bill, could be certified out at the Attorney-General's discretion are the common law offence of riot; some hijacking offences; some firearms offences; some hostage taking offences; and some offences under the Explosive Substances Act.
I shall not list all the scheduled offences which are covered by Clause 2. The Government's aim is to ensure that where such an offence is not connected with the emergency, it will be possible for the case to be heard in the ordinary way. While many offences in the categories I have mentioned may be committed by terrorists, it is quite possible that some such offences may be committed by a non-terrorist, perhaps even in a domestic context; for example a firearms offence. Clause 2 makes it possible for offences committed in that context to be treated in the usual way. It is entirely proper that such a facility should exist.
Clause 3 repeals the power of detention without trial, otherwise known as internment. Some regard this as the most controversial aspect of the Bill. The Government have long held the view that internment does not
890
represent an effective counter-terrorism measure. I have already spoken of the need to strike a balance between effectiveness and overreaction. The power of internment has been shown to be counter-productive in terms of the tension and divisions which it creates. Quite apart from any judgment about its appropriateness in principle, the fact is that internment has not worked in practice. Indeed many would say it was a disaster when last used in the 1970s. There is nothing to suggest that it would be any more effective in the future. The Government's efforts at this time are focused on achieving stability and building trust within the community in Northern Ireland. We cannot envisage any circumstances in which we would seek to deprive an individual of his or her liberty without trial and without the normal safeguards that the law provides for the protection of suspects. Such action would surely run counter to the rule of law as it is understood internationally.
I shall deal with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 together. They are concerned with silent video recording and audio recording. Clause 4 addresses an omission in the existing provisions on silent video recording. Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities. Also, occasionally, a magistrate may order a person to be produced at a holding centre for questioning. Under the provisions of the Act, as currently worded, these categories of interview fall outside the requirement to be recorded on silent video. Clause 4 addresses this omission by enabling the Secretary of State, by order, to require such interviews to be recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres.
Clause 5 creates a new section to provide for the audio recording of police interviews of persons detained under the PTA. This is a significant step. The introduction of audio recording will provide additional protection for both interviewees and police interviewing officers against claims of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment. It will also assist the judicial process by providing the best possible record of interviews conducted in the event that a criminal case ensues. The clause is modelled on the existing Section 53. which provides for silent video recording. It mirrors the amendment provided by Clause 4, ensuring that the order-making power conferred by that amendment will apply also to audio recording. As in the case of silent video recording, the first step will be to draw up, for public consultation, a code of practice which will govern the audio recording of interviews.
This leads me to Clause 6, which is an addition to the Bill as introduced. After consideration in another place the Government readily accepted the additional clause. It has the effect that an order bringing into effect a code of practice under the 1996 Act will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure instead of, as at present, the negative resolution procedure. Matters connected with the operation of the emergency legislation are deserving of the strictest parliamentary scrutiny and the Government are happy to support this important addition to the Bill.

891
As Clauses 7 and 8 are technical or deal with consequential matters, that concludes my description of the content of the Bill. In commending the Bill to the House I ask your Lordships to view it against the backdrop I have described—against the current security and political situation in Northern Ireland, and against the Government's longer term plans to introduce permanent measures for dealing with terrorism.
I ask also that your Lordships acknowledge the Government's positive but measured steps to make improvements, even in the short term, to the existing provisions. These improvements aim to protect further the interests of individuals, including the interests of police officers. I wish to commend all those who work to ensure the fair and consistent application of the emergency laws in Northern Ireland. I include the police, the army, the judiciary and those who administer the criminal justice system. I wish to mention the independent reviewer of the legislation, Mr. John Rowe QC; the independent commissioner for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and his deputy, Dr. Bill Norris; and the independent assessor of military complaints procedures, Mr. Jim McDonald.
I pay special tribute to the security forces who continue, in circumstances which many of us can only imagine, to work diligently and fearlessly to counter terrorist activities and to bring to justice those who have committed some of the vilest acts of murder and destruction in the history of this country. I pay tribute also to all those who have paid the highest price in the line of their duty, those who have suffered, and all the innocent victims of the violence in Northern Ireland. For our part the Government will be tireless in our pursuit of a political settlement and a new beginning for Northern Ireland. In the meantime, we will not leave our people without the protections they need. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—((Lord Dubs.)
6.20 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House. I realise that I am the fourth maiden speaker during this afternoon's business. Indeed, three distinguished maiden speeches were made during the last debate. During the course of that debate, while preparing his own lucid contribution, my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon found time to send me a note which I shall treasure. My noble friend wrote,
"You will know that the 5th Duke of Devonshire is said to have fallen asleep during his own maiden speech".
I do not know whether or not what my noble friend conveyed in that note is true; doubtless it was intended to calm any nervous feelings I might have. However, I hope that the ever helpful Library of this House will never record that I have had that effect on myself or on any of your Lordships during the course of my brief remarks.
The Library has produced a statistic at my request. Fifteen sitting weeks have elapsed since I was introduced in your Lordships' House. Some may think that to speak now is tardy; others, perhaps more old fashioned, may
892
think it somewhat pushy to speak after so short a period. Similar inquiries revealed that in 1979 when I first took my place in another place I waited 11 weeks before speaking. That was nothing like as long as one of my predecessors, Viscount Valentia, who had represented my constituency. He waited 11 years before making his maiden speech in another place. "Those were the days", some would say.
Our views are formed by our experiences when seeking to speak about any subject. Mine have been formed to a certain extent by spending some of the happiest years of my life living for part of the time in Northern Ireland, knowing many people in Northern Ireland as close personal friends, and listening to a wide range of opinions across the political spectrum. I think of the views of my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn, for example, or those of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, at whose feet I have sat on many an occasion in both the Province and here. I have followed carefully the words of wisdom about the Province from such noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. So my views are formed by a wide range of influences and contacts in Northern Ireland.
I must also point out that in a debate of this kind it is difficult to follow your Lordships' excellent practice of being absolutely non-controversial. Even the words "Northern Ireland" are deemed by some to be controversial. At one end of the argument some would prefer "Ulster"; others would prefer "the six counties" or "the northern part of the island of Ireland", or some other politically correct phrase. I guess that I can get away with being controversial by using the phrase "Northern Ireland" because it is on the face of the Bill which has been introduced so excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
I have four points that I wish to make to your Lordships. First, I sympathise, in the correct sense of the word, and understand the burdens and challenges which face any Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. In dealing with security issues they have, of course, my strong support. I listened with great care and attention to everything the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said when he reported to the House on the present tense security situation in the Province.
Secondly, I wish that those who comment on Northern Ireland—the chattering classes, the commentators, those who appear on television screens, the radio and newspaper pages—who have been so rapid in coming forward when Northern Ireland has been in the news would take a sustained and detailed interest in the affairs of the Province over a period of years in order not to make a flip and rapid comment but rather to help inform the people on this side of the water about the realities of the situation that the people suffer on the other side of the water. It is perhaps that lack of care and attention by most of those, although by no means all, who comment and form our opinions in this country which has led to some confusion, which I intend to address in my third and fourth points, about what the words "security" and "peace process" mean.
Thirdly, it is important that people on this side of the water recognise that security has nothing to do with colonial oppression, ideology, or party politics, but

893
everything to do with ensuring that everyone enjoys the same high level of security in every part of the United Kingdom. Security is not some tradeable option which can ever be used in negotiation.
Fourthly, and lastly, there is great misunderstanding on this side of the water about what the phrase "peace process" means. Quite rightly, to many people it means men and women of good will from democratically elected political parties coming together to try to heal the problems of three centuries of discord and three decades of turmoil in Northern Ireland. Alas, to other people on this side of the water sometimes the peace process means doing all that you possibly can to stop people firing guns and setting off bombs under you. At a time when things are moving so helter-skelter in Northern Ireland, it is important to remind ourselves that that route leads only to seeking to accommodate people who in the past have used cease-fires as a tactic rather than as a commitment. To borrow the phrase from one distinguished observer of the scene in Northern Ireland, it is critically important that all our efforts in the peace process, and as regards security, are underpinned by seeking confidence-building measures for the peaceful majority of people who live in Northern Ireland.
At the beginning of my speech I mentioned those who have, in different ways, influenced my thinking about the Province. I referred to my co-religionist, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I well remember being addressed by my Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health and Social Services, as it was called in 1981. One of the most urgent briefs on my desk when I arrived in office was a submission seeking my advice on how we should approach a manufacturer of chemical goods for elderly people in Northern Ireland which branded its products as "Gerifit".
The civil servant was an extremely distinguished man, Mr. Norman Dugdale, Commander of the Bath. He influenced a great number of junior Ministers in the Labour and Conservative Administrations of the 1970s and 1980s. I conclude by quoting not from his advice, because that would break all the conventions of government, but from some of his published poetry in a book entitled Running Repairs, published in 1983. One of the poems was addressed to new Northern Ireland Office Ministers. It is called chillingly Provincia Deserta and refers to,
"gentlemen newly come To live here at the Governor's Lodge. Two years from now You will be safely home again and dining out On your bizarre experiences".
Mr. Dugdale went on with resonant bitterness to speak of,
"All punishment that is random and condign, each Adult male doubling as both predator And victim—a symbiosis which ensures All suffer in the end alike".
He ends wistfully by writing of a Northern Ireland—and he was from this side of the water originally—
"Which will shadow you always, beckoning Still. however far your country".
Northern Ireland certainly beckons me and we must ensure that within the Union of the United Kingdom it
894
always enjoys the same high level of security and the same confidence-building measures as every other part of the United Kingdom.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it is a real personal privilege and pleasure to follow the noble Lord's maiden speech. With typical modesty he has understated his own contributions to our national affairs. However, these are all well known to your Lordships so perhaps he did not feel that it was necessary to say more. He was similarly self-effacing in his references to his outstanding services to Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland, as a Minister who was widely respected across the entire community there. I assure him that a very real reservoir of affection still remains among all classes and creeds in the Province which he served so very well. I note that in his entry in Dod the noble Lord lists one of his recreations as,
"Talking with my wife and daughters".
There is no mention of the guillotine ever having been applied. I am not quite certain by whom a guillotine might have been imposed, but perhaps we shall hear that in due course. It seemed to me, as a bachelor, to be a very necessary device. The noble Lord's maiden speech was understandably restricted. However, I know that he can be relied upon in future to add to the sum of knowledge and understanding of the difficulties of Northern Ireland.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, indicated that much has changed since the Bill completed its passage in another place on 11 th December. Regrettably there has been a resumption of the murderous campaign, in some cases by sub-contractors of established and recognisable terrorist organisations and in other examples by splinter groups. Other forms of terrorism, not unconnected to the drugs scene, have sought to dominate entire communities in Northern Ireland. That, too, is very regrettable.
Defending the Bill in another place some weeks ago, Ministers appeared to be influenced by American supporters of Irish terrorism—although in fairness it must be said that those American supporters are rather less charitable when it comes to Libyan or Iraqi terrorists. Ministers appeared to be sensitive to what was perceived as the importance of confidence-building measures to secure the compliance of Irish terrorists, regardless of the demoralising impact on confidence in the minds of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland and indeed throughout the United Kingdom.
It is just possible that something positive may result from all the current high wire acts at Stormont, and more recently in Tokyo. The problem is that a so-called settlement cobbled together under the glare of the spotlights may collapse when some of the contracting parties or groups discover that the small print fails to deliver that which they had thought they were promised. In that unhappy event, there will be the usual accusations of betrayal and double dealing, resulting in the splintering of some parties which have acquiesced in the arrangement. Sadly, that has been the history of Irish politics for a century and a half. But even more

895
dangerous will be the continuing efforts by existing groupings to eliminate those whom they regard as quislings in their own ranks. We have already seen such indications but conspiracies are gaining ground, with the object of launching a co-ordinated murderous campaign before Easter.
Your Lordships may feel that I am painting a very sombre picture. I hope that you are correct. But intelligence North and South, and here in this island, convinces me that it would be supreme folly for democracy to lower its guard in this particular year.
Nor has the need for vigilance been reduced by the drama of the past few days, culminating in the bargaining by satellite from the Far East. Those signals have not been interpreted by us because they have passed over our heads and the details are therefore by no means clear. It is safe to assume that, as usual, the Dublin Government will have demanded far more than they expect to receive, and will consequently be pleasantly surprised to discover that the despised British negotiators have fallen for Irish blarney. If that does not happen this time, it will he an exception. We can only hope that this time the representatives of Her Majesty's Government will have identified the traps and "wised up".
I trust that Her Majesty's Government will have recognised that terrorist movements deal in terms of absolutes and not compromises. That is always the pattern; and that is the weakness. For a terrorist leader to settle for a devious form of words, capable of many interpretations, would put him at risk of liquidation by his own side, and the result would be an escalation of terrorism by the disenchanted, possibly on a large scale. Over decades Irish governments have been acutely aware of that truth, and it is for that reason that the Irish Republic has been wise enough to retain the power of detention which the Bill before us is prematurely throwing away. It is beyond comprehension that Her Majesty's Government are promoting this Bill—surrendering the power to detain; certifying out a whole range of offences which will result, for example, in the sort of fiasco seen only a few weeks ago in the trial of those accused in the £300,000 terrorist funding raid in Boucher Road, Belfast—the terrorists escaping conviction through an indulgence in various technicalities. And there is the Government's blind refusal to provide for the acceptance of wire tap evidence, which was used to great effect last year in trapping those IRA terrorists who came within an ace of destroying power stations throughout the South of England. On that occasion MI5 and the police forces in England were commended for their activities and their efficiency in defeating terrorism by the use of wire tap evidence.
Finally, I hope it is not too much to ask the Government to reflect on these crucial points and to consider whether public safety throughout the Kingdom will be greatly endangered by the Bill in the highly dangerous situation created by a resumption of terrorism and the further escalation now predicted by every reliable intelligence source.
896
I appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, that there is a requirement for bridging legislation before the present legislation expires on 24th August this year. However, I ask the Government to consider the preparation of alternative fast-track legislation more appropriate to the unfolding situation, which will be made worse, not better, by all the uncertainty attendant upon every political high wire initiative which has dogged Northern Ireland, the whole of Ireland and the United Kingdom in general over the past three decades.
6.39 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, the Minister rightly began with a consideration of the background to the present situation. He mentioned the Maze Prison and what has happened there. That is a very important consideration. It is unbelievable that in one of Her Majesty's prisons in the United Kingdom the conditions could have existed about which we now know and have suspected for a long time. There are men convicted of serious criminal offences, very often of killing women and children. Their political supporters refer to them as political prisoners, but anyone who thinks that they are political prisoners has a very debased view of politics. They are ordinary criminals, no matter what may have been their motives, and they have committed atrocious crimes. For the Government even tacitly to accept that they are political prisoners is quite wrong and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
Recently, as we all know, there were two incidents, one in which a prisoner escaped dressed as a woman and the other in which there were apparently guns available within the prison which resulted in the murder of one of the prisoners. It is said that the prison staff are kept out of the prisoners' quarters and that the prisoners have mobile phones. It has been alleged that some of the prisoners have directed terrorist offences on the phone to their subordinates outside the prison. The Government and Ministers may shrug off responsibility for running a prison on that basis, but I hope that there will be an independent inquiry and that those who are found to be at fault will be removed from any positions which they hold.
For a long time weakness has been shown in the government of Northern Ireland. Much of it can be traced back to the Tory Anglo-Irish Agreement. But although it was concluded by a Conservative Government, it was enthusiastically backed by some Labour Members on the basis that it was a good step towards a united Ireland. It has, of course, resulted in a nest of civil servants being installed in a place called Maryfield, just outside Belfast, who have to approve of most of the measures and appointments made by the administration. It is time that Northern Ireland was run by British citizens of the United Kingdom, whether they originate in Northern Ireland or in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is time to have no more talk about confidence-building measures.
Apparently there is some kind of sub-committee to decide matters which seem to comprise releasing various criminals from prison. That certainly does not build any confidence for the ordinary citizen, no matter

897
what his views happen to be. It may give confidence to the organisations to which these criminals belong and which we could well do without.
There is also the question of doing away with the power of internment, as we call it. I do not suggest for a moment that at the present time, or even in the near future, it would be of use to exercise such a power, but I should like to know whether the Dublin Government have given up their power of internment as well as our having what is in the Bill. I know that I am being pessimistic, but it is conceivable that, in the worst scenario, if some kind of agreement is reached and the terrorists say that they will have a ceasefire and all their men are let out of prison, after a while they may return to terrorism. If it is on a bad scale there ought to be some way of getting the men back behind bars. I see no reason why that power—which we are unlikely to have to exercise—should be removed. Again, it is just another so-called confidence-building measure.
There is a great feeling in Northern Ireland that far too much attention is being paid to the views of terrorists. The fact that Mr. Gerry Adams was received as an honoured guest at 10 Downing Street did not inspire confidence among peace-loving people of any persuasion in Northern Ireland. It made it possible for them to say at the next election: "Vote Sinn Fein. Our leader has the ear of the Prime Minister; therefore you should vote for him". What we should try to achieve is for the republic to agree to wholehearted co-operation in seeking out terrorism and to do away with its claim to Northern Ireland under Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. It is hard to say that those from the republic are there with impartial standing when they have a claim which they have not removed to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is a great deal to be done by firmer government and greater respect being paid to ordinary decent people in Northern Ireland, no matter what their politics happen to be. They are more important than the terrorists who are so often placated.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the Minister made it clear—and gave good reason—why the Bill must be looked at in relation to the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland today. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has just spoken on some aspects which I wish to amplify.
It is difficult for the ordinary, sensible and law-abiding people in Northern Ireland—they must represent about 90 per cent. of those living there—to believe what they have been seeing, hearing and reading. For some time, we—and perhaps I may include myself as being one of those ordinary, sensible and law-abiding people—have been hearing about confidence-building measures. I assume that that means confidence in government. But we have not seen any. What we have seen is a series of bribes offered on an almost daily basis to Sinn Fein/IRA. Then, only two weeks ago, a leading Protestant paramilitary, Billy Wright, was shot inside the Maze by other residents of a different faction and it was found that there were many guns in their possession.
898
Since then we have heard something of the conditions in the Maze Prison where apparently there has not been a thorough search perhaps for years; where there are no regular roll calls; where prison warders are not allowed into the prisoners' wings without permission; where visitors are not hand searched and are not even put through an electric gate, something which all air travellers accept as a matter of routine. Unfortunately, retaliatory shootings followed—one yesterday—and an attempt has been made to destroy the centre of Banbridge with a 500 pound bomb. Then, on Friday, our Secretary of State went into the prison to persuade Protestant paramilitaries to support the peace process because, it appears, she thought that the future of the talks process depended on the agreement of those paramilitaries.
All that is happening in part of the United Kingdom. It is almost unbelievable. Many people are outraged by what has happened in the past week. The only reason people can think of to explain such events is that our Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, are prepared to do anything or give anything to Sinn Fein/IRA or to other paramilitaries in order to stop them bombing London and what the consequences are to the people of Northern Ireland is not significant. It is horrific to think that that is what good, sensible people believe to be the policy. It is difficult not to give credibility to that horrific suggestion. But it is with that in mind that any legislation in respect of Northern Ireland must be examined. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill which we are considering today is intended to extend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act of 1996. That is necessary and understandable. But are the amendments to the Act which are proposed in the Bill intended to assist the authorities to deal with terrorism? Or are they intended to please the terrorists in accordance with the government policy which I have suggested?
The principal change in the Bill is to remove the power of internment. It seems extraordinary that that power, which has not been used for 25 years, should he removed when the omens for the future are not good. The power of detention without trial has been used effectively in the past and by the government of the republic on several occasions. Only in 1972 was it misconceived. Why remove it now when no one is to know when it may be required at short notice? To await the granting of the necessary powers by Parliament would mean that the godfathers and others on the list for detention will have gone into hiding elsewhere.
The other change incorporated in the Bill is to require audio recording of interviews, the effect of which seems very questionable. Will it help the police or will it make it more difficult to convict a suspect terrorist? Will it not make it more difficult for the police to obtain information which will identify other suspects? The merit of the clause is certainly questionable. Is it intended to help the security forces or the terrorists?
My noble friend Lord Molyneaux mentioned the question of wire tap evidence. It seems that that is something which is necessary and such evidence is

899
accepted in other European countries. Why is it not included in the Bill? It would send out a signal to terrorists that the Government intend to get on top of future outbreaks of violence.
I make no apology for looking at the provisions of the Bill in this way; it is the way in which the majority of thinking people in Northern Ireland will look at it. It should be noted, and I hope that the Government will have regard to those views and consider them when deciding how to deal with the situation in the future. If the solution to republican terrorists which the Government believe will persuade them to put away their pikes in the thatch, and if the political process and democracy in Northern Ireland are to have a future, it is necessary that the Government are honest with the people of Northern Ireland and cease to show that violence pays.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise for a few moments to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patten. As he reminded us, he was a Member of another place when we were both elected representatives. I congratulate him today on his maiden speech and hope that he will partake in debates. There will be many more debates in relation to Northern Ireland before we can ever begin to see a resolution of the conflict.
When showing visitors around the House of Lords I am frequently asked what is the difference between this place and the House of Commons. After I have explained how one gets in here, I concentrate on the fact that when we are making a speech in the House of Commons, we are at all times looking over our shoulder at the electorate and hoping to make a speech which will appeal to the constituents back home and thus enable us to be re-elected at the next election. Therefore a tribal response is given on any subject, particularly in the field of security.
Those who come from a nationalist background in Northern Ireland will be opposed to the legislation, opposed to the PTA; they will say that the legislation is not effective. Those who come from a Unionist background in Northern Ireland will say that the legislation should be kept; in fact, it should be consolidated and improved. Both sides in Northern Ireland say that this legislation is either for or against their interests. I hope that the tribal response to events in Northern Ireland from this House will be somewhat diminished.
I listened to speeches of noble Lords on this side of the House this evening and they seemed to concentrate on the awful atrocities committed by Sinn Fein/IRA. The whole House will understand—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will recall—that since the inception of this legislation in 1973 when I was a member of the standing committee taking part in those debates, I vehemently opposed IRA terrorism. I have opposed it all my political life. Indeed, my attitude to republican terrorists throughout my political career led to my political downfall when it was perceived by republicans and
900
Nationalists in Northern Ireland that I was not engaged in the tribal support that they expected of me. No one, therefore, can question my opposition to terrorism.
As I said, the speeches on this side of the House this evening concentrated on IRA terrorism. But what has sickened me over the past weeks and months is to see people guilty of the most atrocious murders in Northern Ireland—particularly John White, who murdered my closest friend, Senator Paddy Wilson, in one of the most brutal murders that has ever taken place during these troubles, and Michael Stone, a Loyalist murderer who shot dead six people attending a funeral in Northern Ireland—being given the facility to stand in front of television cameras and give their views on what is happening in Northern Ireland. Indeed, one of my friends telephoned me and said that to see Michael Stone standing there with his staring eyes and long haircut giving his opinion to the cameras reminded him of the murderer Charles Manson many years ago.
Terrorism is not simply a question of the IRA and republicans; it means all forms of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I now sit on the government side of the House, but when I sat on the Opposition Benches any criticism that I felt in all honesty I could make, I made. But the terrorists are now going to Downing Street, or are standing in front of the cameras, or are sitting in their cells at the Maze waiting to meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland because of what the Conservative government did a few years ago when they decided to have one of the most bogus and rigged elections in the history of Ireland, an election which was so contrived and rigged that representatives of murderers, paramilitary organisations—the UDP and the TUP—were elected. I absolve my noble friend the Minister because he was not responsible for that. However, the former Conservative Government were. That gave those organisations the legitimacy which they so ardently craved. Now they are running the prison in their own interests.
By the way, a sense of humour has been evident in Northern Ireland for many years. Within the past few days, one of the warders at the Maze, which is supposed to be one of the most secure prisons in the world, said to the press, "The Maze is like Butlin's and, unfortunately, we are the redcoats". That is the truth.
There would be no need for this legislation if we had a political solution. I want to give some advice to my noble friend. I can see the whole situation in Northern Ireland from a perspective that existed in 1973 and 1974 and is still quite obvious today. I was part of the Sunningdale Agreement. It made provision for the setting up of an executive in Northern Ireland which would combine nationalists and unionists, Catholics and Protestants. To have been part of that agreement was the apex of my political career. What killed the agreement, which was one of the best and most far-reaching solutions that we have ever had to the problems of Northern Ireland, was the second strand, which sought to set up a body that would have executive powers. I would advise my noble friend the Minister that we are in exactly that position. If the nationalists, the Irish

901
Government, Sinn Fein and the SDLP insist on having executive powers for a Council of Ireland, that will lead to the downfall of any peace process.
I should like to see this legislation being unnecessary. We are about to go into the new millennium. I hope it will be unnecessary to have this legislation. However, I advise my noble friend to do whatever he can to ensure that those emotive words "executive powers" are not the obstacle that brings the whole process to an end.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is a great, if unexpected, pleasure to be following the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, whose dexterity in leaping into the gap I often have cause to admire. I would certainly want to remove any artificial suspense from your Lordships' proceedings by saying straight away that from these Benches we shall support the Bill and the renewal of the powers. How good it is to see the Labour Government now within the tripartisan consensus on this issue in a way that they found difficult in Opposition.
Before I talk about the specific provisions of the Bill I should like to make one or two points about the context in which we approach it. The first concerns the political context. It is true at all times in Northern Ireland that all situations become delicate. The language of crisis can easily be overused. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, in his outstandingly elegant and thoughtful maiden speech, was right to say that the near hysterical language of the media does not contribute to the calm and stability that is needed for progress in Northern Ireland. We are all potentially liable to use overheated words. Nevertheless, this is an unusually sensitive moment in the affairs of Northern Ireland as the talks reconvene. It is good to see the parties huddled around the glow of the talks. But they know and we know, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just reminded us, that there are some dark and sinister figures, of both republican and loyalist persuasion, in the shadows.
I should like from these Benches to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, who have both shown a freshness of approach, a willingness to take risks and an extraordinary willingness to pick up the telephone that would delight Bob Hoskins. I gather that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach have spoken about eight times in the past 24 hours. Indeed, it is good to talk. We should also pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who like so many of her predecessors, one at least of whom is in the Chamber this evening, finds herself the subject of criticism. I pay tribute to her for her willingness, as is the case also with Senator George Mitchell, to roll up her sleeves and get stuck in. That has made a great contribution.
We are approaching a real moment of truth in the next week or so. Can nationalists accept that the unity of Ireland is not on the agenda for generations and then only in a different Ireland, an agreed Ireland, and by consent? Can they accept that? Can Unionists accept—I have listened with interest to some notable speeches from noble Lords who are Unionists—that they must share power and parity of esteem within Northern Ireland and that they must accept a legitimate interest
902
on the part of Dublin in the rights and welfare of the minority community? We shall know very soon when we have reactions to the proposals on the table this afternoon, building on the Downing Street Declaration and the framework document in which Mr. Major's Government played such an important role. I hope that the reactions from all sides are constructive and workmanlike rather than in the overheated terms which too often characterise political debates in the Province. In fact, I have just been told that the first reaction from all parties, except possibly Sinn Fein, seemed constructive when the talks adjourned an hour or so ago. I was very impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, who, in a speech which on the whole looked on the dark side, allowed that this might be a moment of progress. We must all hope that that is the case.
There is no doubt that we need the legislation that the Government have put before us this afternoon. If nothing else proves it, the events leading up to and following the murder of Billy Wright on 27th December show just how febrile the atmosphere is and why, however reluctantly, we must support the renewal of these powers. I could equally well refer to the fact that the terrorist forces on both sides are still on standby. Their structures are intact—the so-called punishment beatings continue—rather than being disbanded. As Gerry Adams said—in this, at least, he spoke candidly—the IRA has not gone away.
There is also the legislative context. The Home Secretary has promised a review of how the EPA and PTA might be brought together. The Liberal Democrats suggested that originally and we certainly support it now. When the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, replies, can he tell us when we shall see that consultation paper? He referred to it in his opening remarks. Will it be days, weeks or months? It is important to know as it affects the attitude of all of us to the progress of the Bill.
The noble Lord referred to the review of anti-terrorist legislation, ably conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. Some of its proposals have been incorporated in the legislation before us. The noble and learned Lord said in his report,
"Once lasting peace has been established in Northern Ireland there will continue to be a need for permanent counter-terrorist legislation to deal with the threat of international and domestic terrorism".
That is why this potential consolidation of anti-terrorist legislation is so important when considering this particular Bill.
Specifically, I welcome the changes in the new Bill. I welcome the change in Clause 2, which means that the Diplock courts will in future be used by exception. There are legitimate concerns about one judge courts. It is right that in future these will have to be justified. While one can understand some of the concerns about jury trials, surely it is preferable, within the British system of justice, to try by jury whenever possible.
Clause 3, to which several noble Lords have referred, removes the internment provisions. I welcome that. When they were last used in the early 1970s they were widely regarded as being counter-productive. When this

903
was debated in Standing Committee in another place in November the Conservative spokesman, Mr. Malcolm Moss, said,
"I think that everyone, including Conservative Members, would accept that in the 1970s the introduction of this measure was clumsy—ham-fisted, even, and ineffective. It probably had the opposite effect from that which it was intended …".
In fact, in another place the Conservative Party divided the House on this issue of the retention of internment. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Conservative Benches. I very much hope that it is not, because not only was internment in practice counter-productive but I do not agree with the argument that one should keep it hanging like the sword of Damocles in case it is ever needed. A lot of things might be needed in the future. At some point we might need to have conscription. If that were so and British security had deteriorated in such a way that we needed conscription the matter would come before Parliament, which could decide to re-introduce it.
I believe that internment is very much in the same category. It is an extreme measure which is not needed in ordinary circumstances. I do not support the argument that by keeping internment one gives some kind of signal. I believe that the reverse is true. It is used consistently by the IRA as propaganda to raise money, particularly in the United States, on the basis that the British Government resort to inappropriate measures. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, since there is no prospect of internment being used in the near future and when it was used it was counter-productive, turning terrorists into martyrs, I believe that it is better to remove it, as the clause does. If it is needed on the statute book at a later date than let us by all means reinstate it. I do not believe that the retention of internment is a proper reaction to the situation which we now have in Northern Ireland.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with both audio and video recording of police interviews. I ask the Minister one question about that. From these Benches we pressed for this five or six years ago. I do not have the precise chronology, but I believe that about two years ago the Government agreed that it would be appropriate. But as I understand it, there is still no silent video taping of interviews taking place. Obviously, the process set out in what I now recall was the 1996 legislation was quite lengthy. But what is the position now? How long will it be before there is silent video recording?
I have one or two final points. I believe that the issue of the right to silence when a solicitor is not present, which was raised in the Murray case and has been discussed in your Lordships' House, has not yet been answered by the Government. Your Lordships will recall that the issue arises where people may be refused access to a solicitor. If a presumption of guilt is likely to be drawn from an interviewee's silence, having a solicitor present becomes much more important. That was the issue that Murray took to the European Court of Human Rights. The Government now intend to incorporate the European Convention into British law, but they do not seem to have solved this problem. To put it crudely, I believe it is a question of having a
904
solicitor present, in which case the right to silence can be construed more constructively. So what plans do the Government have to bring us into line with the European Convention in this respect?
Finally, I wish to raise a point which comes from Mr. John Rowe's report of the operation of the legislation in 1996. It shows that the waiting time for prisoners to be brought to trial in Northern Ireland is still quite excessive. That is a matter on which the previous government said they would try to take action. Mr. Rowe reported that in 1996 it took 27 weeks to get cases to the point of arraignment. That is against 29 weeks in the previous six years, on average. So there has been no real improvement. If one adds the further time taken through to trial, a period in excess of six months is the norm for prisoners on this kind of charge in Northern Ireland. That appears to be quite excessive. When the Minister replies, I shall be grateful if he can indicate whether there is going to be any progress in that regard. With those provisos, we shall support the Bill in its progress through the House.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate made much more so by the elegant maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Patten. I used to call him "my right honourable friend" but always, I hope, "my friend". He served in the Northern Ireland Office, which is not all that exclusive a club as these things go. There were quite a number of us. But he is a very distinguished member of that club. As often when he speaks, he improved my literary education at any rate. I shall look, rather belatedly I admit, at the poem to which he drew our attention. He gave us good reason to look forward with pleasure and interest to his future contributions to your Lordships' debates and to what one might call more things to come.
I now turn to the Bill. Like others who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, at the conclusion of the Back Bench contributions, I hate the necessity for this Bill and emergency provisions. But no one should doubt at all that there is that necessity. We hope that the time will come when we can relax these powers both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It is good to think about that time, but it has not yet come. So I support the renewal of these powers. My reservations are about those clauses of the Bill which do not renew certain of them.
In general, the powers themselves are necessary in Northern Ireland because of the existence of terrorists of all tribes, or whatever description the noble Lord. Lord Fitt. prefers. Terrorists are determined to substitute the terror of bombs and bullets for democratic decisions. No democracy can accept that. The first duty of any democracy is to defend itself against force and anarchy. As my noble friend Lord Patten said, security is not a tradeable option.
As a matter of fact, I believe that republican terrorism has made co-operation between the north and the south of Ireland much more difficult over the years. It has hardened attitudes and closed minds throughout many decades. So-called loyalist terrorism claims to be solely

905
reactive; to be an attempt to meet terror with terror and to prevent republican terrorism from defeating democracy. That claim seemed to have some validity at times, but it will completely collapse if the loyalist terrorists break the ceasefire before the republicans do.
In any case, the ceasefire on both sides is incomplete and has deteriorated in the past few days, as has already been drawn attention to in this debate. The list of incidents, killings, punishment beatings, bombs and arson testifies very strongly to that.
But we all know, too, of the statements by republicans and others that the ceasefire, such as it is, is merely a political tactic. We know that the arms and explosives are still out there in the hands of all sides. As long as those arms and explosives are there, with people willing to use them, we need the most effective emergency provisions that we can devise to support the security forces. I join in the tribute that the Minister rightly paid to them at the end of his remarks.
Of course, we all hope that the current talks will make such provisions unnecessary in respect of terrorism based in Northern Ireland, but we shall still need to discuss United Kingdom anti-terrorism measures in a much broader context, and we shall be doing that later this year when we see the White Paper. In any case, it is difficult to be confident about the outcome of the current talks. It is difficult to judge the handling of the talks from outside, particularly when things appear to be moving quite quickly, as today, or even, I suspect, to judge the progress of the talks from the inside. However, I am certain that it is a difficult and delicate process and I do not want to say anything to make it more difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, drew our attention to the Maze Prison and particularly to the visit by the Secretary of State and to the other things that have come out since. The problem with the Secretary of State's visit is that it emphasised and built up the role of convicted terrorists in the decisions on peace. Everybody who knows Northern Ireland knows that, whether we like it or not, prisoners' opinions are a factor. However, there should be no doubt that we do not like it. As has been pointed out, those prisoners have been convicted of hideous crimes against other human beings. The fact that those murders and other crimes have been committed in an attempt to terrorise the democratic process does not make them more acceptable than murder for some other purposes. Indeed, if anything, I think that that makes them worse. After all, if those terrorist crimes succeeded in their aim, that would open the door to more and more terror.
As I have said, the opinions of prisoners matter in Northern Ireland. The whole difficulty of the talks is that unless the terrorists and their godfathers accept whatever agreement can be reached, peace will not result. However, every time that one builds up the terrorists and extremists at either end of the spectrum, it takes away a bit more of the initiative from the democratic parties which should be at the centre of the talks and from the law-abiding people whom they represent, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, referred and among whom he rightly included himself.
906
Therefore, the reductions in the emergency powers in this Bill are part of that same process of easing the pressure on the terrorists. If it were being done in exchange for concessions, for movement towards agreement or for some change of expressed attitude, it could be acceptable, but at present there seems to be no change of attitude by the terrorists whatsoever. None was visible in the visit to No. 10 by Mr. Adams and his colleagues and none has been visible on other occasions. Our fear is that all these concessions, of which this Bill is a part, are being given for nothing in return.
We hear today that the Irish Government have backed the proposals being scouted by the Prime Minister from Japan. We have had no opportunity to study the details of this afternoon's events, but I hope that that indicates a more positive attitude from the Irish Government than we have sometimes seen in the past, rather than a falling into Irish traps by the British Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, suggested.
It is no good the Irish Government constantly telling British governments to be balanced while they are wholly partisan in their views. They also have to take some risks for peace. They constantly press for "confidence-building measures" directed at republicans and nationalists, but they should also consider measures that they can take to build the confidence of unionists, starting with an agreement to rid their constitution of its offensive clauses as part of any settlement. Perhaps I should add that those clauses are offensive not only to unionists but also to international law. Without that, the unionists are bound to see any potential agreement as a potential notch in a ratchet towards the domination of the north by the south.
I believe that if Irish governments for 75 years since the creation of the state had assiduously tried to build up the confidence of the unionists, they would have got much further towards all-Ireland co-operation. The decline in the number of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland over those years is a measure of attitudes there, and those attitudes have accordingly shaped the attitudes of the Protestants in the north.
Co-operation between the two parts of the island is possible. There are plenty of examples to show those who doubt that, but the best is to watch a game of rugby when Ireland is playing any other nation. That shows all-Ireland co-operation in full swing. Co-operation is possible, but the domination of one part of the island by the other is not going to be forced on either part of Ireland. That is why the definition of "cross-Border bodies" is so important. I hope that the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will be listened to carefully.
I am afraid that I am inherently cynical in my view of Irish governments because the one with which I had to deal was that of Mr. Haughey, but he seems to be being dealt with now anyway. As it happens, I got to know Bertie Ahern before I went to the Northern Ireland Office, when we both worked in other capacities, and I believe that the present government in the Republic of Ireland are of a different character. They could and should look to their own position as well as criticising others. I hope that they have taken a step in that direction today.

907
However, much as we hope for the success of the talks, we are certainly not there yet. That is why this Bill extending the emergency powers is necessary. It is also why I think it unwise to relax protection, as the Bill does.
As the Minister indicated, the most important clause in this respect is that ending internment powers. We all accept that internment did not work 25 years ago and, indeed, that it was counter-productive. However, that is not the only example of internment that there has ever been on the island of Ireland. In any case, the intelligence on which internment depends crucially for its success is much better now, partly because of the advances in electronics but also partly because of the tremendous skill and effort put into it over so many years. The fact is that internment is the one threat that makes life difficult for the godfathers. Those who carry out these dreadful deeds can sometimes be caught and convicted. Those who manage terrorism are much more difficult to catch or to convict.
At intervals during the past few years, it has been thought that internment might be re-introduced—and the mere thought that it could happen disrupts the terrorist organisations most effectively. Besides, anyone who knows Irish history can envisage the possibility of the British and the Irish Governments—as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, told us, the Irish Government have retained such powers—wanting to prevent small bodies of extremists making a settlement reached by more moderate people impossible to implement. If we take away the power of internment from the statute book, it cannot be used effectively.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, there is a crucial difference between conscription and internment. Surprise is essential if internment is to be effective. We shall return to that argument in Committee.
I am also concerned about the recording of interviews. It is well known that the interrogation of suspect people can yield all kinds of information both directly and incidentally but only if the suspect can be absolutely sure that the terrorist godfathers do not know that the information has been given. This is one respect in which fighting highly organised and totally ruthless terrorist organisations is fundamentally different from dealing with ordinary crime. Members of terrorists organisations are carefully trained in resisting interrogation and comprehensively threatened about what will happen if they talk. If recordings may be disclosed to others involved in the defence of the accused, less intelligence will be forthcoming; and intelligence is the single most important element in combating terrorism. That is something to which we shall return in Committee.
Clause 2 of the Bill heightens the role of the Attorney-General by making him—or possibly her at some stage—decide in each case whether a particular matter should go to a Diplock court. We have been brought up to believe that the Attorney-General makes decisions based solely on legal considerations and not political ones. However, the Attorney-General is a politician and even if he is absolutely scrupulous he is
908
not seen to be making decisions solely on legal grounds. People expect politicians to be influenced by political considerations even when they do their best not to be. The position is a peculiar one. The Attorney-General found this out the other day, if he did not already know it—I am sure that he did—when the son of the Home Secretary got into trouble. But the provision in the Bill is altogether more serious. It will make it appear as if every decision as to whether a case should go to a Diplock court is a political one. Even if it is not it will unarguably he a decision of a politician. That is the difficulty with this clause. However, we shall return to that matter later in our discussions.
Overall, like the noble Lord the Minister and others who have spoken, I believe that this Bill is essential. We need emergency powers. They do not by themselves cure the problem of terrorism. Talks and everything else are important to achieve that end. However, the emergency powers have helped to contain terrorism. Without them we would be in much greater danger. We need this Bill. We shall try to strengthen it at later stages, but the Bill is needed for the sake of democracy.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting, useful and important debate. I believe that terrorists try to undermine democracies in two ways. First, they use the gun and the bomb. Secondly, they seek to undermine the institutions which are the real reason why democracies exist. Therefore, we need to arm ourselves with the legal powers and proper security forces to deal with those who use the gun and the bomb, but we must do it in such a way that the fundamental basis of our democracy remains. I believe that, looking at the events of the past 25 years in Northern Ireland, many of the fundamental principles of democracy are still there. That is a sign of our strength.
The intention of the Government in this Bill is to make sure that the right balance is struck and that we have the right powers to deal with terrorists who still kill, murder and maim in Northern Ireland while at the same time we move a little closer to the principles of democracy, some of which have been slightly weakened over the years. We want to make Northern Ireland as normal and as similar to other parts of the United Kingdom as possible. Those are the principles that underlie the Government's approach, which I believe have been well understood in many of the speeches made this evening.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on his maiden speech. I do not believe that he is a bit pushy. If being pushy is to make speeches such as the one made by the noble Lord then I hope that he will become more pushy than he has been so far since becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. His speech merits further consideration and rereading in Hansard. I believe that he put his finger on many of the key issues that underlie the difficulties in Northern Ireland and the way in which we must move ahead. I believe that he and I went to the other place as a result of the same election. I have followed his very successful political career with interest and look forward to his

909
further contributions, pushy as he wants them to be, to the deliberations of this House. He put his finger on some of the key issues that underlie the Government's approach to Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is one of the most experienced Members of this House in terms of his knowledge and understanding of Northern Ireland and he must be listened to with the greatest of respect. He painted a depressingly sombre picture of the situation there. I should like to take issue with him on one or two points. I deal first with the question of wire tapping. The noble Lord is aware that this is a complex issue. There is a need to balance the desirability of adducing evidence with the requirement to protect intelligence-gathering techniques. That dilemma has bedevilled the matter in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed last October that the Government were considering precisely that issue. A review is under way. It is being conducted in a serious and comprehensive way, as the noble Lord would expect. The issue is an important one and we are determined to get it right.
I believe that when the review is completed the noble Lord will be able to see how we have dealt with the points that he has made this evening. The noble Lord referred to negotiations from Tokyo and suggested that the Irish Government were calling the tune. I do not believe that that is right. The propositions that have been put forward stem from extensive discussions with the parties. They will be subject to further discussion with the parties. It is not the case that the Government have capitulated to demands made by the Irish Government. We adopt a robust attitude to the discussions, as do the Irish Government. We have not capitulated. We have sought to feed into the talks what we hope is a basis for agreement among the parties. Both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have been involved in this process, and that is right and helpful. The Prime Minister sees it as his duty to do all he can to ensure that the talks move forward. But all of us are clear that it is the participants in those talks who are the key players in reaching a settlement, and that is how it should be.
I deal now with the question of internment raised by one or two noble Lords. In this Bill, the decision has been taken to get rid of the power of internment. Frankly, it has not worked. The Government cannot see any circumstances in which they would wish to use the power of internment. It is fundamentally a process that is against the rule of law and undermines democratic principles. The Government believe that to get rid of the power is sensible and signals their adherence to the rule of law and democracy. We do not believe that it in any way weakens the power of the Government to deal with terrorism. The use last time of internment to deal with terrorism was a failure. We believe that the use of internment would strengthen the terrorists because it would give them a further argument in their communities against the Government and we want to deny them that.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and other noble Lords referred to recent events in the Maze. An independent inquiry into recent events in the Maze is now under way. That inquiry is being led by Mr. Martin
910
Narey, director of regimes in the Prison Service of England and Wales. In addition, there is to be an inspection of HM Prison Maze by the chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales, General Sir David Ramsbotham. No one can be other than dismayed by recent events—both the escape and the existence of a firearm—in the Maze. I very much hope that both the inspection and the independent inquiry will enable us to find out what happened and be clear as to what further action should be taken.
The inquiry and inspection teams will make themselves available to receive representations from political and other interested parties. The reports of the inquiry and the inspection will be published and made available to political parties. A series of measures designed to improve the security and safety of inmates and others have already been introduced. The RUC is undertaking a full police investigation into the death of the prisoner, Billy Wright.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, talked about co-operation with the Irish Government on security. The Irish Government's determination to combat terrorism has been well illustrated over the years—for example, by recent finds of explosives and associated arrests in the republic. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome that recent success by the security forces in the Republic of Ireland.
The noble Lords, Lord Cooke, Lord Patten, Lord Molyneaux and Lord McConnell, talked about confidence-building measures. It is widely accepted in the House that there is a need to build trust and confidence on both sides of the community, and that that is crucial to the development of the peace process. The Government have consistently adopted a fair and even-handed approach to the issue of confidence-building, despite what some people with malicious motives sometimes suggest.
We have taken measures in respect of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. We are taking steps to pay tribute to the victims of violence, which is a matter of importance to the unionist community. We will continue to act to build confidence throughout the community in Northern Ireland. But confidence-building has to be a two-way process. It is not the responsibility of the Government alone. The biggest confidence-building measure would be a permanent end to violence, and the achievement of a political settlement, acceptable to both sides of the community, which could pave the way for a brighter future in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, described the changes in the Bill as concessions. As I have explained, the changes to the existing Act contained in the Bill are not concessions, but are justified on their merits. They include the removal of the power of internment for the reasons that I have already explained, and the introduction of audio recording, which has the support of the Chief Constable. I can assure the noble Lord that the Bill has nothing to do with concessions, but represents measures by the Government which we believe will improve existing powers.
I always listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, because of his enormous knowledge and his background in Northern Ireland. I take on board his

911
comments. I can assure him that the Government will continue to work tirelessly towards finding a solution which will achieve sufficient consensus within the talks. We are aware of the sensitivities to which he referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the timescale for the publication of the review. That work is urgently in hand. There are issues of some complexity to be explored, as he will understand. I hope to see the consultation paper published as soon as possible. I hope and expect that that will be a matter of weeks rather than months. I cannot at this stage predict a definite timescale for its completion. I can assure the noble Lord that intensive work is taking place. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that at the moment. It is a matter which we see as one of urgency.
The noble Lord asked also when silent video recording would be introduced. I expect it to be introduced next month. I hope that that will give him some reassurance. He talked also about delays in bringing people to trial. The administrative time limit scheme was introduced in 1992. It is based on the type of regime that will be required if the statutory time limit provisions in Sections 8 and 9 of the Emergency Provisions Act should be commenced. To date, over the lifetime of the scheme, applications relating to 59 scheduled defendants would have resulted in their being released on bail had a statutory time limit scheme, along the English lines, been in force. Some long-standing problems need to be considered in the round; for example, it is anomalous that there is no statutory provision for time limits for non-scheduled remand cases, which form the bulk of the caseload.
My right honourable friend has therefore charged the comprehensive cost-cutting and spending review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland with considering how to introduce statutory arrangements for tackling delay in the criminal justice process in Northern Ireland. The delays are too long. We have to find ways of tackling them.
The noble Lord asked also about the case of John Murray, and representation by solicitors, and how that will affect the European Convention on Human Rights. The Murray judgment has been studied carefully by the Government. A number of options are being considered in response. It is a complex matter which raises issues about the treatment of suspects under emergency and criminal law. Wide consultation within government has been necessary. I hope that we can make some progress, but the noble Lord will accept that it is a difficult point, because of the need to strike the right balance. It has sometimes been alleged that solicitors present in such circumstances have themselves come under pressure from terrorist organisations outside. That means that information that they have obtained may get into the wrong hands. We have to strike the right balance on this matter.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his overall support for the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his qualified support for the Bill. The Secretary of State visited the Maze not to negotiate, but to make it clear that talks are the only way to reach a settlement, and that an overall settlement is the only way to tackle the
912
issues which are of concern to the prisoners. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State did the right thing. If the talks had collapsed because she had not taken that step, she would have been to blame. She did the right thing. The fact that the talks resumed today is at least some evidence to support her decision.
The noble Lord, and other noble Lords, referred to audio recording. We of course have to get the balance right between intelligence and evidence; that is to say, between not giving away intelligence and securing evidence. The police support the change to having audio recording. There will be better evidence in the courts as a result of the audio recording process. The noble Lord. Lord Cope, talked about the Irish Government's role. Like ourselves, they recognise the crucial importance of building confidence in the talks. They have already made a commitment to amend Articles 2 and 3 as part of an overall settlement. That is the right way forward. We agree that that is an important and vital step.
I hope that I have dealt with all the main points that have been made. I hope that it is clear that the Government will not be soft on terrorism; that we shall ensure that the security forces in Northern Ireland have all the means at their disposal to deal robustly with terrorism; that we also value democratic principles. The move we are making in the Bill represents a good balance and therefore the way forward. The security situation in Northern Ireland is as I have described it. Some terrorist groups remain active and represent a serious threat. There can be no question of leaving the security forces without the measures that they need to counter that threat.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. It will provide the means to counter terrorism and enhance existing protections until the Government can bring forward the new legislation to which I have referred.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Architecture and Design in Public Buildings
7.50 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve the standard of architecture and design in public buildings and buildings which are wholly or partly paid for by public funds.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my remarks tonight are intended to be positive and I hope that they will be received as such. However, I hope that at the beginning I shall be forgiven for being a little negative on a number of points although I do not wish to go into detail.
We are told that this is the season of good will. I do not want party politics to intrude into the debate. Philistines crop up in the most unexpected places in the political spectrum and I see no correlation between political opinion and an interest and concern in architecture. One may disagree about whether a

913
particular project should go ahead, but once a decision has been taken that it should surely we can all agree that it should be done well.
I do not want to spend much time talking about the Millennium Exhibition. For a couple of years I was a Minister in the Department of National Heritage. When responsibility for the exhibition was passed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my noble friend Lord Freeman, I was charged to speak in this House on behalf of his office. I am prepared to concede that initially I was sceptical about the project, but I was won over.
I wish to make two points. First, the exhibition is not only about the Dome. Sir Norman Foster is designing the bus station arrangements while Alsop & Stormer are designing the new Underground station. In addition, there is to be major regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. I can see no reason why it should not be a great success in the tradition of the Great Exhibition and the Festival of Britain, but I believe that a necessary pre-condition is that the project is professionally organised and managed and does not focus on the meretricious. If it were to be a flop—and I hope that it will not be—I believe that that will he the reason.
After reading the Sunday papers, I understand that there is tension in the air. A certain amount can be good for creativity, but I suspect that, like good claret, too much has the opposite effect. Equally, I do not wish to concentrate on what might be described as "swagger projects", although I shall deal with the Scottish parliament later in my remarks. We are considering the less glamorous projects for which the Government are responsible; that is, housing, schools, offices, perhaps warehouses, hospitals, doctors' surgeries, Underground stations, citizens advice bureaux and public lavatories.
Directly and indirectly, the Government are the largest patron of building in this country. Before the establishment of the National Lottery, they were spending approximately £4 billion a year. The lottery is a wonderful instrument of patronage and can provide opportunities for the best of our architects to be admired around the globe. Furthermore, the Government, of all patrons, have perhaps the greatest moral obligation to provide the bench mark for the rest of society. When I recently spoke to Dicken Robinson of the Peabody Trust I was interested to hear that he believed that businesses should contribute to the wider community. The trust believed that building good buildings was what it could do most effectively.
Let us he clear that the Government commission good buildings; for instance, the Inland Revenue building in Nottingham and the Crown Court at Truro. There are many such examples, but there are some poor ones. For example, when from time to time I visit the local social security office where I live in the north of England I do not find it to be a good building. Many are much worse.
A building cannot be good unless it works properly. It cannot be built on the cheap, but at the same time it need not be self-indulgently lavish. Good buildings matter because as a society they inform the wider world about our country's attitudes and values. By extension, they inform us how we value our fellow citizens
914
individually and collectively and the environment in which we live. Furthermore, they inform the future about our age. Buildings are the great icons which identify the generations. We look hack at history and identify the various ages by reference to the buildings left behind. Finally, good buildings deliver better than bad ones.
Government, as patron, operate within a framework. In general, modern governments in the western world have properly developed elaborate systems about the custodianship of public money. One is sometimes tempted to believe that from time to time the rules get in the way of doing good. A more recent development is the mechanism for consumer protection and redress for the public in respect of services provided by the state. I refer to the developments arising from the former Prime Minister's initiatives via the citizen's charters. For example, if the train arrives late you get some of your money back and if you write letters to government departments you have a right to expect a reply within a certain period.
How does that framework relate to buildings? We must admit that as regard building projects that facet is least satisfactory. We are developing techniques of full life costing, but they depend on valuation. As regards redress for a bad building, the only long-term redress is that if it is sufficiently unsatisfactory, demolish it. That is drastic and expensive. As regards political responsibility, neither I nor anyone I have spoken to can think of an example of a politician being sacked or voted out of office for erecting a bad structure.
I return to the custodianship of public money. I speak as a chartered surveyor who has never professionally valued anything. But valuation and evaluation are subjective activities. The longer the life of the asset one is considering the more difficult it becomes. That is exacerbated by high interest rates. I do not believe that any valuer or accountant has found a sensible way of valuing the worth over time of good design and good concepts. That is important. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who is sorry he cannot be here tonight, commented from his experience of a building erected for the British Embassy in Germany, which was frequently upstaged by the local Mercedes dealership. He went on to say that he was pleased that the proposals for the new embassy in Berlin are more satisfactory. But when I was in Berlin I was told that it was intended that the main reception room should be available to the adjacent hotel as a function room. That does not sound right at all. I suspect that valuing buildings is most akin to valuing works of art. One does not value them by colour, size or the amount of wallpaper that it is not necessary to provide. It is an art.
When I was in government it was a subject for which I had responsibility and one which interested me. I took a few small initiatives, as had other Ministers previously, and I believe that that will happen again in the future. Two issues come clearly to mind which are prerequisites of getting things right. First. I believe that the person in charge of any building project, and those involved in it, need to know and care about the building. One cannot have a good building without a client who

915
wants to build a good building. An architect cannot produce a good building if his client does not wish to do so.
Furthermore, time is important. One cannot expect something excellent to emerge instantly. I am not saying that we should expect all projects to take as long to come to fruition as the British Library, but one must allow enough time for the project to develop to a satisfactory form. If the rules on the availability of public money militate against that, something is wrong.
At the end of last week I heard on the radio the proposals for the new parliament building in Edinburgh. I am an Englishman from Cumbria, which historically has had an antipathy towards, and a suspicion of, the Scots. I enjoy Edinburgh as a great city, even though I do not know the site of the proposed building. As an Englishman and a Cumbrian, I do not take too much of a detailed interest in Scottish affairs. I understand that we on these Benches were opposed to the policy which involves the construction of a new parliament building but we lost the argument. Now that project is going ahead—and I come back to an earlier remark—let us make sure that it is as good as possible. Because we are all British and because of my "Britishness" I feel that the project affects me.
An interesting parallel is the reconstruction of the Reichstag in Berlin under the direction of Sir Norman Foster. I visited it just over a year ago. I could not help thinking how extraordinary it was that in 1945 hundreds of thousands of people had been killed capturing the building while in 1996 the contract to revamp it was captured by an English architect, not using a gun but through the European Communities public procurement directive.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government will be seeking the best possible design for the building which will house the Scottish parliament, even if it means that a German or—dare I say it?—an English architect will take the project forward. After all, it seems to me that the Scots and the British deserve the best, just as much as the Germans do.
I do not expect that the Minister will be able to tell us that everything is absolutely right and never again will the Government allow any public money to be involved in the creation of a poor building. I do not believe that the world is like that. Indeed, I do not believe that even new Labour could claim to have built the new Jerusalem in just over six months.
I know that in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport there are Ministers and officials who feel as strongly about this issue as I do, as do others who are to speak in the debate. That is so not only in the department but right across government. If we in this House raise the topic from time to time at decent intervals we shall be able to help them in their endeavours to try and make things better. If we can get on their backs, they will get on the backs of other Ministers who will get on the backs of other officials who actually get things done.
I am sure that I shall not be the only person to raise this topic. If I am to believe what I read in the newspapers—I am an hereditary Peer—I see that I am probably about to be served with a notice of demolition, which will take effect in about two years' time. I shall be replaced by some post-modernist creation constructed on different principles, presuming, I understand, to replace wood by high technology. The Government may or may not find that they have created a similar building but I hope that the House as a whole will take forward this aspect of public policy because it is important to everybody. I believe that we in this House can serve the nation by taking it forward and drawing it to the Government's attention.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Rogers of Riverside: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on introducing the debate and asking the Government what steps they are taking,
"to improve the standard of architecture and design in public buildings and buildings which are wholly or partly paid for by public funds".
I thank the noble Lord for his excellent speech, to which I listened with great interest.
I would argue that we have the means, both financial and human, to create public buildings and spaces of the highest quality. Therefore, if this debate is taking place at all, it is because we have not had the political will to introduce policies which ensure that public architecture is of the highest quality. That must change.
Good public buildings directly benefit society as a whole. One in five of us lives in public housing; one in five of our workforce works in public buildings; and almost 10 million of us go to state schools and universities. We all use our hospitals, town halls, public libraries, public parks and squares. The quality of these buildings and spaces therefore directly impacts on our daily lives and in more ways than we may imagine, because, over and above any functional contribution, buildings can create what I will call social capital.
Let us take as an example the Palace of Westminster itself, which was the result of a design competition held in 1835. It was designed by Barry and developed together with Pugin, who Pevsner called,
"the most fertile and passionate of the Gothicists".
Pugin was only 23 and Barry 40, a youthfulness that reflects the confidence of the period. The Palace is now recognised as a symbol of democracy throughout the world, an object of national identity and of pride.
Let us now take the example of our schools. Too few even satisfy the teaching methods that we are trying to promote. But, beyond meeting the specific functional requirements of the children and their lessons, a building of real architectural quality can focus the community, inspire the student and provide pride and status to the teachers. Imagine schools as the hub of the community and the playground as the local square. In that scenario, the parents become directly involved with the school and education and citizenship fuse into one.

917
On even the tiniest scale, good public architecture makes a difference. A public convenience and flower stall hardly seem relevant to this learned debate, but, when a young, talented practice, CZWG, took on precisely this public brief in Westbourne Grove near Portobello Market, the impact on the neighbourhood was startling. Previously a dead and littered space, the stunning light green tiled building with its beautiful curving supple forms, its elegant glazed flower stall, its glass canopy to protect those sitting on its benches and its large public clock has turned what was a desert into a pleasant and secure neighbourhood centre. and the WCs seem to work well!
How can we secure better quality of design? We need good public clients who use good architects. Sadly, in recent years and perhaps decades, the Government have had a poor record of patronage. It is therefore imperative to appoint knowledgeable selection groups to help carry out public procurement policies aimed at improving the choice and proper briefing of good architects.
Ironically, Britain is universally recognised as having some of the world's best architects, both young and less young, though to find their major work one usually has to go abroad. In all cases those architects have won their commissions through public design competitions.
The national lottery regulations have changed that situation for lottery projects, by insisting on a design competition procedure and a thorough assessment of a project's long-term value. This is helping to reverse the recent public procurement strategy based on fee bidding and lowest capital cost. A tendency that is supported by research in the private sector proves that buildings of higher architectural quality offer landlords better long-term value, higher returns and lower maintenance.
The competition system is a proven procedure. It can take a wide range of forms, from the international design competition open to all architects to local competitions open to young architects, and from competitions which ask for detail design and costing, to competitions by selection of the best architect by CV and interview. Each is tailored to satisfy the individual needs of the client.
The International Union of Architects, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Department of the Environment and Culture, Media and Sport have all produced guidelines recommending more or less the same strategy. The process of using design competition to improve the standards in public buildings is recommended by the EC, and most of Western Europe has been using this system for the past 25 years. In those countries it has produced a new generation of talented architects (some of whom are British) and a plethora of good buildings.
To maximise the chances of creating a good public building or for that matter a good public space, the Government need a coherent strategy and appropriate advisers. It should not be, I must add, a heavyweight bureaucratic structure, another layer in an already overburdened system. The system must be flexible, lightweight and capable of responding to local issues and of creating diversity. Procurement is a complex issue and it is my strong recommendation that it be the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sport.
918
Mark Fisher, the Minister for the Arts, has been working up proposals for some time but has been unable to convince the different departments to adopt this coherent approach. That is a shame because, if we are to improve the standards of our buildings, we need a robust policy that crosses departmental boundaries. I ask the Government to do this by backing the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and by setting up a small committee which would ensure that the £4 billion of public money, and more, currently spent annually on our public buildings achieves the best results. If that money were to be used on buildings of high quality, let us just imagine the cumulative effect on the quality of our cities and of our citizens' lives.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Palumbo: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Inglewood for promoting tonight's important debate. It would be difficult to imagine any more ideal setting for it than your Lordships' House—a felicitous collaboration between Sir Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin. It also represents a benchmark of what a government are able to achieve by way of public commission, and—dare I say it?—a grand projet on the grandest of scales, when they set their mind to it. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for stating the obvious when I say that government have no money; what they have is access to the use of taxpayers' money. That means that they have an overriding responsibility to use that money wisely and to account for it fully and properly.
It also means that such money should never be used to celebrate the second rate. Government patronage of the built environment, both central and local, is by far and away the largest in the land. It involves billions of pounds every year and yet the record of the commissioning by government of public buildings is, on the whole, woefully mediocre. One notable exception, in my opinion, is the magnificent new British Library, designed by Sir Colin St. John Wilson. I hope that those noble Lords who have not already done so will take an early opportunity to visit that largest and most important public commission in Britain during the 20th century.
What, then, can be done to ensure that taxpayers' money, wisely spent by an enlightened government, can be harnessed to the creative genius of architects and designers throughout the British Isles in a way which is unparalleled anywhere else in the world? I believe that the answer lies fairly and squarely in the competition system, carefully and meticulously administered so that every public commission is subjected to that process. That process has been used to great effect in Finland, where the standard of public buildings is higher than in any other country in Europe. It involves the preparation of a comprehensive and an unambiguous brief in which the function of the building is made abundantly clear, but more of that anon.
It involves too the preparation of rigorous technical specifications and the widest possible public consultation. It also involves a judging panel of international standing, and monetary controls to ensure that the building contract is brought in on time and within budget. It is no pie in the sky formula; it is a

919
formula which can and does work. The fact that the competition system in this country has had a somewhat chequered history should not blind government to its advantages, nor deflect them from the fact that it is the way forward for the future as we approach the third millennium.
Mention of the millennium leads me to the Millennium Dome in Greenwich. I suppose that there are historical precedents where a government have commissioned a great architect to design a structure without informing him of what precise function the structure is to accommodate, but I do not know of any. No less than three-quarters of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money is to be allocated for the exercise. It is an exercise in pure political caprice—a game of Russian roulette played with huge sums of taxpayers' money. It is also a political time bomb waiting to explode which no amount of spin-doctoring will be able to defuse. It would be ironic but perhaps, in a way, appropriate if the significance and the symbolism of the Millennium Dome were to reside in its architecture alone and in its surroundings; and, indeed, in the technological wonder that it undoubtedly represents.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside, the name of a single architect most likely to spring to the lips of the man on the Clapham omnibus would be that of Sir Christopher Wren. It was he who said that the aim of architecture is eternity. That is what we should surely strive to achieve. We certainly have the talent and technology to do so. However, we need to raise our eyes and expand our horizons and have the courage of our convictions as the Victorians and the Georgians had before us. Above all, they were confident societies whose confidence was expressed in the monuments that they left behind. After all, it is by the monuments that we leave behind us that we shall be judged when our history comes to be written. I believe that it is the competition system, properly administered, and an appreciation of art and design fostered from an early age in the National Curriculum which will enable the Government to lay claim to the respect of posterity.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for initiating tonight's debate. I was also glad to hear his reference to the importance of values of the built asset. As we have just founded the All-Party Group on Architecture and Planning, where perhaps we can generate better synergies between government and the professions, I propose to base some of my remarks on one or two perspectives generated from those professions.
My first point is that architecture should be created by architects and not by professions untrained in design and in the science of construction. The Royal Institute of British Architects, since its charter of 1837, retains its objectives as a learned society to extend the body of knowledge upon which the practice and appreciation of architecture are based. In my professional opinion, most architects are concerned with the quality of the physical and built environment and the social and environmental impact of development. They are concerned with
920
developing successful links between the public or private clients and the design professions and the process of serving the client and the consumer. They are concerned with improving the efficiency of the profession and its ability to compete in world markets; and they are concerned with increasing the understanding of and synergies between the diverse skills within the professions and the construction industry as a whole. The RIBA, through its code of professional conduct, standards of admission, a series of publications, register of practices and programmes of continuing professional development, seeks to extend the standards of integrity and competence of its members.
Architects must essentially be able to look at the total context of a design problem if the right answers are to be arrived at. The process of design requires special training and can involve many skills and diverse aspects of the design process. All must be taken into account at the early stages of design if problems are not to appear later and require revisions and consequential loss of time and additional costs.
Most projects require a special solution to suit the context of the site, its access, its orientation, the functions of a building and its structures and the financial constraints of a client. The built environment is special and getting the right solution is always a question of skilled teamwork—often between diverse professional and contracting skills—and essentially teamwork with a client. Both architects and planners and the project sponsors carry great responsibility for the integration of all the personal and community interests and all the specialist skills needed to arrive at the best possible outcome, and in such a manner as to carry the convictions and interests of the final user, the investors and the markets.
The achievement of the appropriate standards of architecture and design of public buildings sponsored by public clients can be threatened by failure to enable any one of the processes of procurement, production, operation, maintenance and management. Project sponsorship is itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, stated, a skilled task and may require well trained, professional architects and planners to help in the process of project development. The RIBA has recently issued a useful document entitled A Decent Standard: procuring Good Public Architecture. It is worth considering and gives an idea of the perspectives on this problem from one of the main professional bodies.
The Government have been effective in issuing advisory documentation such as the series of planning and policy guidelines. Ministers of this Government and previous governments are committed to the improvement of standards of design and architecture. Those in individual departments of the Government have themselves developed useful standards and guidelines to permit the innovation and experience of the private sector to design within the context of the particular public client.
Perhaps first and foremost of the problems in the achievement of good public architecture is the failure—at times today and certainly in the past—of public

921
bodies to commission work only when the structure of the project and its requirements have been adequately defined. All too often the exigencies of time and cost lead to decisions on the manner of proceeding when there is inadequate analysis of the project. A professional relationship between client and design team at the feasibility stage is of great help. When a good client has the character and the experience to participate in the project development with the professional team, great results can be achieved. I think of an example in Hackney with the new sports centre.
There is a great need for skilled procurement of services, for the selection procedure to assess design quality as well as price as the criterion of selection. The RIBA is particularly critical of the effectiveness of compulsory competitive tendering where the criteria of cost do not always achieve the most appropriate results. Certainly the advent of CCT can seriously reduce the incentive of the professional to look for the benefit of the client and the quality of the building. With CCT the client and building owner hope that the professional will give quality where it may not always be included in the budget. But, alas, is that a reasonable view of human nature? Is that a responsible attitude of project sponsors?
The benefits of good design have been recognised increasingly by the private sector because of its investment structures which depend upon market perceptions and changing needs, user satisfaction and the retention or enhancement of asset values. I believe public buildings come under the same series of assessment criteria. The public building programmes may often be limited, however, by economic and revenue considerations, but it is just these limitations that should be offset by the quality of design, which does not necessarily mean higher capital costs.
Fine public architecture adds value. It aids the delivery of efficient public services and in the urban planning context it often plays a critical part in the perceived quality of the environment. It contributes significantly to the quality of life, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, has said, and as he said most eloquently in his Reith lectures. I believe it also contributes to the cultural attachment to a place. The RIBA states, and I agree,
"Good design can engender pride and encourage the development of a sense of community and ownership".
But,
"Good design is seldom achieved without direction, leadership and commitment from the public body itself".
In supporting the Government's policies on best value, whereby both property and services are responsive to changing needs, where they are subject to continuous improvement, where they are sustainable and achieve the best value for money, the RIBA recognises that the community for whom the whole service is developed must also be the principal driver of the best value process. The whole idea of community involvement and "ownership" relates to the same social and democratic principles that in my opinion must be the driver and judge of the policies of devolution. It is the public who must be the participants in the policies for the regional development agencies and the effective creators of the future government for London.
922
Market testing of services is important. but I believe the futile regulations which at times demand retendering in mid-project, as for the Great Court of the British Museum, lead to redundant effort and must bring the system into disrepute. The cost and effectiveness of PFI and the hidden consumption of financial resource among the competitors is also a serious problem that is, one hopes, being adequately addressed. The recession in the building industry in recent years and the cost of PFI has not been a good combination. The Bates review identified the need to improve the PFI process and to reduce bidding costs, making an important series of recommendations. But the RIBA believes that there are further beneficial methods of reducing the time and cost of arriving at the preferred bidder. Having myself acted for procurers in the development of bid documentation and in the private sector in the assessment of hid documentation, I agree with the suggestions that architects should be given a greater responsibility in the development and assessment roles of the PFI process.
I mention another of the problems of maintaining the public estate. So often the redundant buildings are not assessed for their reusability early enough in relation to the markets and property managers are not aware of their asset value and the need to sustain this value. The delay of capital spending for maintenance contributes greatly to the degradation of the urban environment and to the burdens on government employees. The existing built asset is also of great value. In years past the responsible attitude to utility properties and their maintenance has been poor and has contributed to the negative perceptions of our environment.
The RIBA is keen to be of assistance to government in considering these issues and many others issues written up in its new publication. The institute undoubtedly has essential experience and would wish to be closely involved in the development of policy and roles and relationships between government and the professions. There are in my experience some excellent clients emerging in the role of sponsor for public projects. I believe that the process of improvement is well under way but the lessons of the past must be learned and remembered.
So my third point is that the process of developing synergies with the primary stakeholder (the voter) and the users of the built environment and synergies between the project sponsors and the members of the design teams is of critical importance to the outcome and the quality of the product.
The spreading awareness among the public of the factors contributing to the sustainability and enjoyment of our environment is a most encouraging factor. I believe strongly that the heightened awareness through the influence of the media offers us the opportunity to incorporate a much wider range of people into the body responsible for the quality of our environment and the planning of our future facilities and political structures. But our present political structures and the historical and often unplanned nature of our environments lead to alienation and social problems, inefficiency of urban systems and costly regeneration and renewal. We have to improve the standards of public architecture planning and design for the well-being of the population in order

923
to increase their sense of ownership and to combat the social and criminal diseases that the planning and political system has brought upon itself. There is hope but we cannot afford to lose time.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I apologise to the House for leaping into the gap during the interesting debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I shall not speak long enough to make a splash but a mere ripple.
I wish to underline one key point made in the very practical speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. We are discussing the possibilities of improving the standard of architecture and design in public buildings. From my recollection of debates on such matters in recent years in this House, the most severe blow to improving those standards was the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, commented. That policy was a great error. In those days—it was from the other side of the House—some of us, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, opposed CCT as actively as we could. We were defeated. CCT was not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood; I do not think he was to blame in any way. I absolve him totally from that policy.
However, I wish to suggest that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, pays particular attention to that part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I do not ask my noble friend to promise the immediate repeal of CCT; I ask only that he ponders the matter, and in the fullness of time I dare say that it will move away. That one single act would lead to the improvement in standards we are discussing tonight.
8.33 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I ask the forgiveness of the House for being perhaps the least qualified speaker in the debate. Without offending the Benches opposite, perhaps I may class myself today as the people's speaker.
On a very pleasant afternoon today as I crossed St. James's Park pondering what I should say in the debate, it occurred to me how typical that park is of what appeals to an Englishman. One has the combination of landscape, buildings of a most attractive and pleasing scale, and water. When considering my travels around the country—I have perhaps more of a visual sense than any other—it is that aspect which impresses me about England rather than the United Kingdom, although it probably applies also to buildings in Scotland. As one travels the length and breadth of the country, one is impressed by the buildings and their surroundings which have been passed down to us by our forefathers. There is the noted absence of what one might call monumental architecture. That makes us somewhat different from other countries in Europe.
Those who are better qualified than I am may take me to task later outside the Chamber, but it seems to me that the Englishman has a certain reticence, a certain
924
fear, of monumental architecture. It is the domestic scale which attracts him. The noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, may disagree with me on this, but that may be why British architects have been such a success outside the United Kingdom. British architects may have become somewhat frustrated by the limitations placed on them, and have gone out into the world with great energy and applied themselves to monumental architecture which has been well received in countries outside the United Kingdom. My feeling—it may be shared by others who wander the streets and byways of Britain—is that when there is the possibility of putting public funds into a large building, whether it be a large police station or a hospital, the concern of everyone, except possibly the architect, is that it should not be too flamboyant or imposing.
I admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It was a speech such as one normally expects from the noble Lord. It was most interesting and passionate. The issue inevitably leads on to the plans for the millennium. Again, perhaps I express a people's view here. I have no great taste for the millennium. I enjoy the satirists on television who poke fun at it. I particularly enjoy the row that is taking place now about the dome. I am not too much concerned about the money. I am not too much concerned about the fact that the dome will apparently last only 20 years; I believe that that may be a plus point. However, as regards the Millennium Dome at Greenwich, I am concerned at the extraordinary unwillingness to let us know what it is all about. If no one knows what it is all about and we have to wait for Mr. Mandelson to come back from Disneyland to tell us, why does someone not say, "We're not sure but it's a jolly attractive and technologically advanced piece of building, and we'll get something to put in it or leave it empty"?
I believe that the noble Lord mentioned the exhibition of 1851. That exhibition had the clear purpose of presenting to the world our inventiveness and our products, since we were in the vanguard of the industrial revolution. The success of that exhibition was built upon 11 years later—it was late as British buildings often are; it was not 10 years later as intended—by an even greater exhibition in South Kensington. Although the buildings no longer now stand, I believe that the impetus the exhibitions gave to British inventiveness and production has lasted. Even now scholarships are awarded as a result of moneys made out of the 1851 exhibition. What will be the lasting results of the Greenwich Millennium Dome? If it is to be empty, we know that there will be none. If it is to be a theme park, that may well suit the present mood. It will offer instantaneous satisfaction of some kind, and then we shall all forget about it. Surely our aim ought to be to create, if not a permanent structure or even something permanent inside, at least an effect which will endure, so that in a hundred years' time people will say, "That was a very curious promontory into the Thames, but the ideas were extraordinary. Look how ahead of its time and how stimulating it was". The noble Lord may be able to give the House a clue as to how we are to be stimulated.

925
I read in today's Guardian a most interesting and amusing article by Mark Lawson, tongue in cheek, comparing our attempts at creating a "Millennium Experience", as it is now called, with that in France. In France they display great style and imagination in these matters. Apparently they plan to pour a lot of scent into the River Seine, and there is to be the enormous hatching of an egg under the Eiffel Tower, which will then transform itself (I do not know quite how) into a huge area of screens and so on. Mr. Lawson thinks this will probably frighten Mr. Mandelson into trying to follow along the same lines. We await his announcements with trepidation.
The Minister is an amiable, understanding and patient man. He will know that I am not being unkind but am saying in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way that it is essential that the purposes, when they are revealed—I believe an announcement is expected next month—of this "Millennium Experience" (in the horrible term that is now used) will lead to something lasting. The buildings will not last—it has been clearly stated that they are built to last 20 years—and I doubt whether whatever is inside will last either.
The monumental architecture of the British Library has gone way over budget and way over delivery, as they say in the shipping world, but it has one advantage over the French national library. The British, being pragmatists, have put our people upstairs and our books below. I believe that in the French national library the opposite has been done. I hope that English pragmatism will always be brought to bear on British architecture.
My interest as regards visual matters is mainly in cinema. Architecture is very close to cinema. Indeed, some of the directors whom I most admire started their careers in architecture. Architecture is very important to us in relating to our history and the scale of the world in which we live—both the immediate scale and the larger one. This is a very important subject. It was extremely kind of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to start us off after the Christmas Recess with a debate that is so topical and important.
Finally, I reiterate that in this country we have all the skills of innovation in so many fields, exactly as we did in 1851. We have people who are highly qualified in all kinds of creative and technical fields. We can, as is proved by the success of our architects all round the world, produce buildings which are second to none. I rather like much of the modern architecture in the City. What has been done is extremely impressive. The buildings in what used to be the terrible, fish-smelling area around Lower Thames Street have been done beautifully and look as though they have been made to last. I am not pessimistic, as a man in the street, about the state of English architecture; I am concerned about letting people run free with ideas which are fanciful, such as the millennium idea, and which contain no long-term benefit for our successors. Taking the country as a whole, by and large what was done by our predecessors was extremely impressive and extremely appropriate for the country in which we live and to our moods and traditions. I hope that that approach will not change. I look forward to the noble Lord being able to give the House some encouragement, and perhaps some
926
hint of what we are to expect along the Thames. I hope that it is not men's aftershave in the river. I am sure that it will not be.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for introducing the debate. It has been both fascinating and constructive—quality rather than quantity—with most distinguished speakers. There are just a few points that I wish to add at this late stage.
First, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not forget to promote the better use of their fine stock of existing historic buildings, of which there are many examples around the country. One such example is the naval dockyards at Plymouth. These buildings are our heritage.I do not mean simply that they should be conserved but that they should be properly used—enjoyed and cherished rather than left to rot. Such buildings were often the centre and catalysts of community activity when they were first built. Now, with sensitive adaptations, there is no reason why they should not become the same once again. We owe a great debt to the Prince of Wales not only for championing this very important cause but for making possible all the work that is done by his successful Phoenix Trust and his Architectural School.
It is also vitally important that the higher education proposals from Sir Ron Dearing, now the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, regarding the training of architects are taken seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, rightly stressed the importance of training. Sadly, the experience of the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the excessive emphasis on project management considerations, has led many in this country to be reluctant to take risks in architecture. As a result, architects with commercially established practices have a great advantage over the imaginative architects with small practices when it comes to winning commissions. That attitude sits uncomfortably with the dynamism, creativity and entrepreneurship of the country as a whole.
British architecture is in fact more appreciated abroad than it is at home. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, the distinguished architect, who spoke so eloquently on the importance of good public architecture. Yet our David Chipperfield has been selected for the reconstruction of the Neues Museum by Stiller next to Shinkel's Altes Museum at the heart of historic Berlin—the most important and prestigious project in the whole country. But, here in the UK, in the provincial museum and gallery sector he won in the past only smaller commissions.
Rick Mather has produced elegant and simple solutions to the space problems of the Wallace Collection and the Dulwich Gallery which are ideal for historic buildings. Where, however, are buildings such as the Museum of Modern Art of Frankfurt by Hans Hollein or the Guggenheim of Bilbao by Frank Gehry?
A small provincial town like Ulm has the courage to ask Richard Meier to build its cultural centre on the historic town square, right next to the medieval

927
cathedral, creating a wonderful, and not jarring, contrast. Here, Robert Venturi, who won through the competition system so rightly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, designed with great sensitivity to the context a beautiful extension to the National Gallery which is so unassuming yet so attractive and functional that it fades into the background and yet enhances the gallery.
If new Britain is not simply to be a PR gimmick, this Government should encourage change of the widespread attitude towards architecture. For example, they should throw their weight behind the ground-breaking and wonderful project by Daniel Libeskind for the Spiral in the new V&A. We need to preserve the best of the past and ensure that we create new buildings that will be worth preserving.
8.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that this is the first debate on architecture that has taken place in either House since the last election. For that reason, if for no other, we must be especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for drawing our attention to it and for assembling a cast—if I may put it that way—of distinguished speakers this evening. I acknowledge his initiative in doing that and the impetus behind it which, as he rightly says, is not in any way party political but is concerned with a matter with which we are all concerned: the improvement of the quality of public buildings in this country.
My noble friend Lord Rogers pointed out the importance of public buildings, and I am again glad that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expressed his Question so widely as to cover buildings which are not necessarily built entirely with public money but have a public use. That is the important consideration. My noble friend gave statistics concerning the extent to which we are all involved in public buildings. I acknowledge our responsibility, which was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, to ensure that this vital part of our future heritage is of the highest possible quality.
Of course, it is common ground that our past architectural heritage has been of enormous distinction over the centuries. We may look at the variety of syles of architecture in this country over the past millennium and the way in which English architects and architects from other parts of the British Isles have played their part in European and world architecture in that period. If we consider that, then the responsibility we have to enter the new millennium at the highest possible peak of architectural quality is all the more onerous on us.
Fortunately, our architectural heritage is well sustained by the generations of architects now in practice in this country, even though—as noble Lords said—some of the best of them have been doing their best work abroad.
Before I leave that point, my noble friend Lord Rogers referred to the contribution of young and, I believe he said, not so young architects. I wish to pay tribute to him in his chairmanship of the Architecture Foundation. I have had the opportunity of looking at the
928
publication on emerging practices which is due out at the end of the month. I have been enormously impressed by the quality as well as the variety of the work of young architects—that is, young in the sense of in their 20s, 30s and possibly 40s—displayed in that publication. If that is a pre-publication "puff" I do not apologise for it.
It has to be said that, despite our architectural heritage, recent performance in the public sector has been variable or patchy. The noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, calls it "woefully inadequate". That is a little sweeping. It is quite true that for every Truro courts or Inland Revenue building in Nottingham there are probably several examples more like Marsham Street or the local social security office of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, than we would wish to see.
There is a great mixture of good and bad in public architecture in this country. We do not aspire to the same consistently high standard or perhaps the consistently high-based standard which the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, rightly mentioned as characterising public architecture in Finland.
Why is it that despite our inheritance there is such a patchy performance? It is apparent from the speeches this evening that it is because we have lacked a coherent approach to design procurement. In other words, we have not thought enough or clearly enough about the role of the Government as client. I say that in full recognition of the work which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, did in his position in the Department of National Heritage as it then was. Behind him, I wish to pay tribute to the work of Mr. John Gummer, who was particularly keen on the quality of design procurement.
That raises the question: what do I mean by design? Other noble Lords have referred to it, again we are not talking just about appearance. We are talking about architecture as solving problems. providing fitness for purpose in a wide variety of public buildings. That means problems in the use of the site or the space around and within the buildings, problems of the use of materials, the reduction of maintenance costs, energy efficiency and access problems, particularly for people with disabilities. Fundamentally there is the need for public buildings to provide an enhancing living, working or leisure environment. Behind all that there is the whole issue of low lifetime costs. If we neglect design at the beginning because of penny-pinching at the procurement stage, then the price that we will pay will be very high indeed. I remind your Lordships that the design fees on a building are usually less than 1 per cent. of the lifetime costs of the building.
How are we to improve the quality of design procurement? How are we to improve the performance of the Government as a client? Let me say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that I acknowledge the initiatives which the RIBA has taken. The Government are grateful to it. There are both supply and demand aspects of how to overcome the problem. From our side, the government side, the first requirement is that there should be better design briefs. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rightly said, that means that there must be a more adequate timescale allocated to the

929
preparation of the design brief. The Inland Revenue building at Nottingham which it was proposed should be built in the cheapest and most clumsy way but was then rightly handed to Sir Michael Hopkins and Partners is a good example of a worthwhile investment in adequate time for the preparation of the design brief.
Then there are all the opportunities which exist through the use of juries and, above all, public competition. That was a theme from a number of noble Lords. We were reminded that the Palace in which we live and work was the result of open competition in the 1830s.
I rather liked the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, to open government, because the two go together. If we are to encourage—as we shall—open government in all its aspects, we must open up the architectural procurement process as widely as possible to as many people as possible. We must have exhibitions of designs, as we have had in more recent years.
Competition of itself is not an unalloyed good. Competitions are expensive to run. They can take a long time. They involve abortive costs for those who do not win them, and in order to be attractive and successful they must offer substantial prizes, including prizes for those who do not succeed. It is not a universal panacea. But clearly the enhancement of good architecture has been improved by competitions and that is an area where we need to give further thought to the guidance we produce.
Again on the aspect of improving the Government's performance as a client, I draw attention to the revised Planning Policy Guidance No. 1, particularly Annex A on design management. That was produced in February 1997 under the previous government and it is a good document which we want to support. Leading on from that, we are producing a manual on the role of good design in the planning system. We have the government construction clients panel. The Treasury has been producing procurement guidance notes, all of which may be helpful in improving the quality of the design procurement process.
But then we must consider the supply side as well. We must think about the quality of the architects who are available to undertake the work. I have already paid tribute to the quality of current work and to the work of the Architecture Foundation. I certainly acknowledge that the architectural profession has gone through a dreadful time in recent years with the decline in work available. Many architectural practices have lost partners and many architects have been driven out of business.
930
Having said that, there is a sense in which architects could do more to follow up the design and construction work that they do and to understand more the way in which their buildings operate. As a local councillor in the 1960s I was responsible for building up a considerable architectural department in a London borough. We had the greatest difficulty in persuading architects to go back to buildings once they had been completed, other than the minimum requirement of a six-month inspection. They would not even do what Erno Goldfinger did, which was to live in his own flat in East London, and he only did that for a week. There is scope for improvement in that regard and I hope that architects will not take my comments amiss when I have sympathised with their economic plight and praised them.
Behind all of this is the need for us to encourage a multiplicity of commissioning sources. It would not be right for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to be the universal commissar of design or to lay down the law on what should be done in public buildings. The great advance in any art is a wide variety of impulses for that art. That applies also to architecture.
The PFI could be a threat, but it need not be if we make sure that we have adequate design guidance for PFI projects. Design and build could be a threat, but there are plenty of examples of good design and build—the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester is one of them—which show that even there it is possible to obtain good results.
The availability of capital expenditure on buildings through the various lottery funds is an enormous boost to good architecture in this country, as is the Millennium. I do not have time to pursue the questions of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in relation to the Millennium Dome, which are slightly outside the range of this debate. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, that the dome is not without a purpose. The detail of the various activities which will take place under the dome are still to be worked out and discussed in public, but the dome itself—as I am sure my noble friend will agree—has a clear purpose whatever goes on inside.
Above all, we should avoid "monopsoly"—the economists' word for a supply cartel; for a unity of supply comparable to monopoly on the other side of the equation. It is in variety; it is in letting 100 flowers bloom that we shall see a continuing improvement in architectural quality of public buildings in this country. This Government gladly accept the challenge posed by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and other speakers this evening.
House adjourned at six minutes past nine o'clock.

  Health Service Chairmen and Directors
  Health Service Chairmen and Directors
  Risk Factors
  Risk Factors
  Alcohol-Related Morbidity and Mortality: Costs
  Alcohol-Related Morbidity and Mortality: Costs
  Vitamin B6 Proposed Restrictions: Ministerial Consultations
  Vitamin B6 Proposed Restrictions: Ministerial Consultations
  Community Health Services: Expenditure
  Community Health Services: Expenditure
  Parental Discipline
  Parental Discipline
  Helplines
  Helplines
  Care of the Mentally III
  Care of the Mentally III
  Judgments: Legal Databases
  Judgments: Legal Databases
  Public Record Office Charges
  Public Record Office Charges
  Human Rights Legislation Implementation: Judicial Training
  Human Rights Legislation Implementation: Judicial Training
  Consolidation Bills
  Consolidation Bills
  Administrative Decisions: Public Information
  Administrative Decisions: Public Information
  Arms Exports to the Netherlands
  Arms Exports to the Netherlands
  US Missiles: Developments
  US Missiles: Developments
  Weapons in Space
  Weapons in Space
  Turkish/Israeli Military Collaboration
  Turkish/Israeli Military Collaboration
  NATO
  NATO
  Iraq: Further Military Action
  Iraq: Further Military Action
  Relations with Unconstitutional Regimes: Policy
  Relations with Unconstitutional Regimes: Policy
  Governments in Exile: UK Support
  Governments in Exile: UK Support
  Pakistan: Penal Code
  Pakistan: Penal Code
  UN Victims of Torture Fund: UK Contribution
  UN Victims of Torture Fund: UK Contribution
  Palestinians in West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza
  Palestinians in West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza
  Mr. Mordechai Vanunu
  Mr. Mordechai Vanunu
  Caspian Sea Oil Reserves
  Caspian Sea Oil Reserves
  Vehicle Overloading on the M.20
  Vehicle Overloading on the M.20
  Health and Safety Laboratory: Annual Report and Accounts
  Health and Safety Laboratory: Annual Report and Accounts
  "Pescado" Sinking: MAIB Report
  "Pescado" Sinking: MAIB Report
  Emissions Trading
  Emissions Trading
  Railfreight Distribution: Terms of Sale
  Railfreight Distribution: Terms of Sale
  Memorial Land
  Memorial Land
  Pyrethroid Pollution of Watercourses
  Pyrethroid Pollution of Watercourses
  Thorne and Hatfield Moors
  Thorne and Hatfield Moors
  Household Projections
  Household Projections
  EU Member States: Unfunded Liabilities
  EU Member States: Unfunded Liabilities
  Deaths from Various Causes
  Deaths from Various Causes
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Pharmaceutical Companies: Ministerial Code
  Pharmaceutical Companies: Ministerial Code
  Proposed Freedom of Information Act: Fees and Charges
  Proposed Freedom of Information Act: Fees and Charges
  Parliamentary Copyright
  Parliamentary Copyright
  Museums: Charges and Grants
  Museums: Charges and Grants
  Museum Entry Charges
  Museum Entry Charges
  British Library: MSS Acquisition Budget
  British Library: MSS Acquisition Budget
  Museum Visits: Studies
  Museum Visits: Studies
  UK Civil Servants Working in the European Commission
  UK Civil Servants Working in the European Commission
  European Commission: Staff Assignments
  European Commission: Staff Assignments
  Tax Credits for Students
  Tax Credits for Students
  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  EMU Accession Date
  EMU Accession Date
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Benefit Integrity Project
  Benefit Integrity Project
  Services Personnel: Chemical Warfare Immunisation and Disability
  Services Personnel: Chemical Warfare Immunisation and Disability
  Benefit Claims Backdating Limitation
  Benefit Claims Backdating Limitation
  Child Benefit Lone Parent Element
  Child Benefit Lone Parent Element
  Peers: Free Parliamentary Publications
  Peers: Free Parliamentary Publications
  Jobcentres: Registered Vacancies
  Jobcentres: Registered Vacancies
  Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997: SI Committee's Consideration
  Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997: SI Committee's Consideration
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Falkland Islands Garrison
  Falkland Islands Garrison
  Gulf Veterans: "Rabbit Fever" Vaccinations
  Gulf Veterans: "Rabbit Fever" Vaccinations
  Operation Granby: Contaminated Debris
  Operation Granby: Contaminated Debris
  Gulf Veterans: Medical Tests
  Gulf Veterans: Medical Tests
  Depleted Uranium Ammunition: Handling
  Depleted Uranium Ammunition: Handling
  Camp Doha Fire, July 1991: Casualties
  Camp Doha Fire, July 1991: Casualties
  Chemical Warfare Agents: Immunisation Effects
  Chemical Warfare Agents: Immunisation Effects
  RAF TriStar Maintenance
  RAF TriStar Maintenance
  RAF TriStar: Operation and Maintenance Costs
  RAF TriStar: Operation and Maintenance Costs
  Ballistic Missile Defence: Studies
  Ballistic Missile Defence: Studies
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  RAF Northolt
  RAF Northolt
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  "Millennium Goods": Trade Descriptions Act
  "Millennium Goods": Trade Descriptions Act
  EU Members: Export Rights
  EU Members: Export Rights
  United Bank Ltd: Industrial Relations
  United Bank Ltd: Industrial Relations
  Pregnant Women and Employment Law
  Pregnant Women and Employment Law
  EU Internal Market Council, 27 November: Votes
  EU Internal Market Council, 27 November: Votes
  Fossil Fuel Alternatives
  Fossil Fuel Alternatives
  World Climate Research Programme: UK Participation
  World Climate Research Programme: UK Participation
  Biotechnological Inventions: Draft Directive
  Biotechnological Inventions: Draft Directive
  Bleach Green to Antrim Railway Line
  Bleach Green to Antrim Railway Line
  On-Line Lottery Games
  On-Line Lottery Games
  Litter: Offences
  Litter: Offences
  Crime and Disorder Bill: Representations
  Crime and Disorder Bill: Representations
  Crime and Disorder Bill Provisions: Monitoring
  Crime and Disorder Bill Provisions: Monitoring
  Electronic Monitoring: Pilot Projects
  Electronic Monitoring: Pilot Projects
  British Citizenship Application Refusals: Publication of Reasons
  British Citizenship Application Refusals: Publication of Reasons
  Asylum Applications: European Union
  Asylum Applications: European Union
  Asylum Applications: OSCE
  Asylum Applications: OSCE
  Firearms Incidents
  Firearms Incidents
  Taxi Licensing: Criminal Records Checks
  Taxi Licensing: Criminal Records Checks
  Under-age Sexual Intercourse
  Under-age Sexual Intercourse
  Isle of Man and Channel Islands: Human Rights Provisions
  Isle of Man and Channel Islands: Human Rights Provisions
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 4–5 December
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 4–5 December
  Freemasonry in the Police and Judiciary
  Freemasonry in the Police and Judiciary
  Beef Sales: Regulation
  Beef Sales: Regulation
  Peanuts and Vitamin B6: Adverse Reactions
  Peanuts and Vitamin B6: Adverse Reactions
  Vitamin B6 Symposium: Government Response
  Vitamin B6 Symposium: Government Response
  Vitamin B6: Daily Intake Advice
  Vitamin B6: Daily Intake Advice
  Vitamin B6: Consumers' Association
  Vitamin B6: Consumers' Association
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Consultations
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Consultations
  Specified Risk Material: Controls
  Specified Risk Material: Controls
  British Cattle Movement Service
  British Cattle Movement Service
  EU Surplus Food Scheme
  EU Surplus Food Scheme
  Animals: Intraspecies Feeding
  Animals: Intraspecies Feeding
  Mussel Seed Stock: Licences
  Mussel Seed Stock: Licences
  Bovine TB in Cattle and Badgers: Report
  Bovine TB in Cattle and Badgers: Report
  Fishing Vessels: Licensing
  Fishing Vessels: Licensing
  Beef on the Bone: SEAC Advice
  Beef on the Bone: SEAC Advice
  Agriculture Ministers: Consultation with Farmers
  Agriculture Ministers: Consultation with Farmers
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Agriculture Council, 15–16 December
  Agriculture Council, 15–16 December
  Animal Product Imports: Imposition of Controls
  Animal Product Imports: Imposition of Controls
  Beef Imports: Controls
  Beef Imports: Controls
  Varroa Mite Control
  Varroa Mite Control
  Beef Imports: Origins
  Beef Imports: Origins
  Bone Meal Fertilisers
  Bone Meal Fertilisers
  Beef Bones for Dog Food
  Beef Bones for Dog Food
  Fisheries Surveillance
  Fisheries Surveillance
  Fish Spawning Stock
  Fish Spawning Stock
  Marine Resource Consumption in the EC
  Marine Resource Consumption in the EC