Sitting of 13 January 1998

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

    Iraq (Sanctions)
    Mr. Cohen: If he will take steps to ease or remove sanctions against Iraq affecting children and the sick. [20412]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The process of relaxing United Nations sanctions can begin when Saddam Hussein complies with all the relevant Security Council resolutions. His behaviour in November demonstrated that he is still far from willing to comply.
    We have no argument with the Iraqi people. That is why we co-sponsored oil for food resolutions, which permit Iraq to export oil in exchange for humanitarian relief. Regrettably, the prolonged failure of Saddam Hussein to accept the arrangements led to a long delay before the benefits became available to his people.
    Mr. Cohen: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Kofi Annan that the input of humanitarian aid is unsatisfactory? Does he agree with UNICEF that 960,000 children are chronically malnourished—an increase of 72 per cent. since 1991? What is moral about sanctions that target children? Even if Saddam Hussein uses children politically, why does the west choose to be their agent of death? At the least, will the Government agree to double the oil for food deal and ensure that the money goes on food and medicine for those children rather than being syphoned off for reparations?
    Mr. Cook: There are no sanctions on food or medicine. We are willing to consider an increase in the oil for food provision, but we are dealing with a man who has built additional presidential palaces in the past six years while the situation that my hon. Friend described has prevailed among his people. He has continued to spend billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq report demonstrates that, even as we speak, Saddam Hussein is acquiring enough anthrax to fill two warheads every week. Given that he has a record of using chemical weapons against his own people, the international community cannot
    126
    tolerate him continuing to acquire the capacity to destabilise the region. For those reasons, we must continue our pressure on him to abandon his programme for weapons of mass destruction. The hardship of his people must rest on his head more than on anyone else.
    Mr. Alan Clark: I do not doubt for a minute the humanitarian instincts of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), but does the Foreign Secretary agree that he is dealing with the arch practitioner of the human shield technique in military and diplomatic affairs? Were the Foreign Secretary to relax sanctions, only a tiny group of children or the sick, assembled for a photocall for the world's press, would receive any aid. The rest of the oil revenue would go straight to the military machine that Saddam Hussein so menacingly continues to assemble, as the Foreign Secretary has just described.
    Mr. Cook: I do not deny the genuine humanitarian impulses of many people who see distressing photographs from Iraq of children in need, and wish to respond. I understand their good faith, but they have to reflect on the fact that the Iraqi Government have an appalling record of repression and oppression of human rights, led by a man who claims 45 presidential palaces. It is by no means clear why the president of Iraq, whose country is apparently in such hardship, needs more palaces than any other monarch anywhere in the world. Sanctions are continuing after six years not because the world is vindictive, but because Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to comply with the resolutions of six years ago.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has it occurred to the Foreign Secretary that the perceived cruelty against children might strengthen rather than weaken Saddam Hussein's position?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, which all of us involved in the debate must address. That is precisely why we have embarked on trying to get across to the Arab world that sanctions apply to Saddam Hussein because of his military ambitions and particularly his acquisition of chemical and biological weapons, not because we wish in any way to punish the Iraqi people. I hope that we can get that message across throughout the region because other Arab countries in the region stand to be most at threat if Saddam Hussein succeeds in acquiring such a capacity.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the person best able to help the children of Iraq Saddam Hussein himself? What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of consequences in the event of the United Nations abandoning its efforts to ensure that the Security Council resolutions were fully implemented? Is it not likely that, in those circumstances, Saddam Hussein would swiftly return to the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons, continue to pursue the nuclear capability, which he wishes above all else, and thereafter simply threaten to use weapons of mass destruction whenever he thought that it was in his interests to do so?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman's best answer lies in UNSCOM's report to the Security Council. I commend it to any hon. Member who has any doubts about the Security Council's policy. The report makes it

    127
    quite clear that Saddam Hussein still persists in seeking to acquire a chemical and biological capacity. It is only with the greatest persistence that UNSCOM has worn down his attempts to develop a nuclear capacity. For all those reasons, I have not the slightest doubt that if the world were to accept the propaganda war being waged from Baghdad and drop its guard and sanctions, we should be left with a regime in Baghdad that had not only acquired such weapons but has, in the past, shown a willingness to use them.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the policy has been pursued for seven years and that Saddam Hussein is stronger than ever? The punishment of the Iraqi people and the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children amount to a war crime. Is he also aware that America has no support whatever in the Security Council, China, France and Russia or the Arab world for the military threats made? Is it not time to look at the matter again rather than make innocent people suffer for policies that have failed, and will almost inevitably continue to fail?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's view that the policy has failed. Indeed, if he studies the UNSCOM report, he will discover that it has effectively halted the Iraqi nuclear and missile programmes. As the chairman of UNSCOM never tires of pointing out, UNSCOM has managed to dismantle and destroy more weapons than were ever destroyed during the Gulf war. The policy has not completely succeeded, but that is down to the defiance of Saddam Hussein.
    In Geneva, where all five permanent members of the Security Council met at a meeting which I chaired, we achieved a unanimous agreement on a text which requires Saddam Hussein unconditionally to comply with Security Council resolutions. It weakens the pressure on Saddam Hussein and encourages him when anybody suggests division among the permanent members of the Security Council.
    Mr. Howard: I acknowledge the humanitarian concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House. Does the Foreign Secretary share my apprehension over today's report that Saddam Hussein has halted the work of the United Nations inspection team, headed by Mr. Scott Ritter? What action does the Foreign Secretary propose to take in response to this latest attempt by Saddam Hussein to flout the UN's authority?
    Mr. Cook: I fully share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns about the development of the past 24 hours. It is for the chairman of UNSCOM, not Saddam Hussein, to decide the composition of teams that carry out inspections. The present round of inspections has been carried out by 44 personnel from 19 different countries. It is therefore wholly false to accuse UNSCOM of any national bias. I shall be discussing the matter with the United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Thursday, when I visit Washington. Mr. Butler, the chairman of UNSCOM, will be returning to Baghdad next
    128
    week. In the light of his report and those discussions, we shall certainly be considering what further action should be taken through the Security Council.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I remind my right hon. Friend that many of those who oppose sanctions today are the same people who argued for them in 1991, and opposed the military action?
    Mr. Cook: I am seeking to achieve maximum unity against Saddam Hussein, and I do not think that it would be consistent with that policy to answer my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Gibraltar
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the constitutional status of Gibraltar. [20413]
    Mr. Robin Cook: Gibraltar is a British dependent territory whose relationship with the United Kingdom is defined by the provisions of the 1969 constitution. Britain has repeatedly confirmed to the Spanish Government that there can be no change to that constitution without the democratic agreement of the people of Gibraltar.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern in Gibraltar about the proposal by NATO to establish sub-regional commands, and the published reports that Gibraltar could be put under the control of a sub-regional command based in Madrid? As any such move would have significant constitutional implications, will the Foreign Secretary, after his welcome statement today, make it clear that he would consult the Secretary of State for Defence before any such move was made?
    Mr. Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because it enables me to put the record straight, in case there is any apprehension on the subject. The new sub-regional command in Madrid does not include Gibraltar; the military post in Gibraltar is under the direct control of the British military authorities and reports directly to Britain, not to Madrid. I hope that that clear position affords the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.
    Mr. Hoyle: Has the Minister told the Spanish Foreign Minister that there will be no joint proposals on Gibraltar, and that the future of Gibraltar rests with the people there? We do not want to see Gibraltar sold down the river, as the people of Hong Kong were sold down the Yangtze.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has put two questions to me, and I shall reserve the right to answer only the first. I agree entirely with his observation about Gibraltar. We are a democratic House elected on democratic principles, and we must respect the same democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to decide their own future. In December, I expressed forcefully to the Spanish Foreign Minister the importance to us of respecting the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. I am pleased to say that, afterwards, he acknowledged that there could be no

    129
    question of forcibly imposing a solution against the wishes of the citizens of Gibraltar. That represents an improvement in the Spanish position, and I am glad that we have managed to secure it.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Spring: If he will make a statement about the Government's objectives in respect of enlargement during the UK's presidency of the European Union. [20414]
    Mr. Paice: If he will seek to establish target dates for the next stage of European enlargement during the United Kingdom presidency. [20423]
    Mr. Robin Cook: Enlargement will be one of the central themes of our presidency. In accordance with the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council, we shall open the accession process on 30 March and begin accession negotiations with the six applicants that are ready, very soon thereafter. On 12 March, we shall inaugurate in London the European conference, which will be open to all current candidate countries. Our aim is to give the enlargement process as much momentum as possible before the end of the British presidency.
    Mr. Spring: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, only last month, the Prime Minister said that successful enlargement could come about only with the resolution of the problem of the common agricultural policy? Why, therefore, when the Prime Minister listed the important concerns for the United Kingdom presidency only last week, did he make no allusion to the common agricultural policy and its solution in connection with enlargement?
    Mr. Cook: We have repeatedly pressed the importance of reform of the common agricultural policy—[Interruption.] With all due respect to hon. Members, I must tell them that we have done so repeatedly, in the context not only of our election manifesto but of the presidency, as I did again only last Sunday.
    Of course, we must be frank about the fact that, although during our presidency we can take forward the detailed proposals made by the Commission and ensure that those are worked up into specific proposals, we cannot hope to complete the work in the six months of the presidency. It sits ill for Opposition Members, after 18 years of leaving the problem behind, to demand that we solve it in six months.
    Mr. Paice: Is not the real reason why the Prime Minister did not mention CAP reform that he knows full well that it is not only unachievable in the six months of the presidency, but that it is highly unlikely to be achievable in a longer time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Eighteen years."] I must point out to Labour Members that the Conservative party was in power when the CAP was reformed in 1992. Is it not the case that, until the German elections are out of the way this autumn, the German Government will not agree to move on any reform of the CAP that would mean a reduction in the subsidies to their farmers—the principal obstruction to any reform in the future, as it was on the previous occasion?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in being defeatist about the prospects for change. At the November
    130
    Agriculture Council, 14 out of 15 member states backed the Commission's proposals, which we shall take forward during our presidency; for instance, to cut the price support mechanism for cereal. I note the hon. Gentleman's support for that, and I am sure that his constituents will welcome it.
    As to the future, there are two major pressures on Europe to reform the CAP. The first is the immediate pressure of enlargement, because we must reform the CAP if we are to be able to afford enlargement. The second pressure is the growing liberalisation of world trade, which will not indefinitely allow what is essentially a protectionist instrument.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that neither threats from Ankara nor bluster from North Nicosia will delay the opening of negotiations on the entry of Cyprus to the EU, while it making clear to Turkey that it would be a welcome participant in the London conference on 12 March?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's question points out the delicate tightrope that anyone involved in those negotiations must walk. We have persistently made it clear that we support the right of the Republic of Cyprus to apply for membership of the EU, and we believe that that application must be considered on its merits and cannot be vetoed by any third party. At the same time, we wish to have positive and constructive engagement in dialogue with Turkey. I spoke to my Turkish opposite number only last week and I continue to press Turkey that, if it wishes to come to the European conference, the door is ajar and we should welcome Turkey to discuss matters of mutual concern.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Foreign Secretary review the amount of funds available through the UK know-how fund and European Union programmes to help the applicants to begin the lengthy and difficult process of harmonising their domestic laws with those of the EU in advance of accession? Will he ensure that more resources are available to help civil servants and people from business, commerce and industry from the applicant countries to gain skills in EU languages?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I am happy to respond by saying that there is already a large budget in the EU to assist the applicant countries through accession partnerships to prepare themselves for full membership. Britain is running a scheme to train negotiators among the first wave of applicant countries. That is precisely because we do not regard those negotiations as confrontational, and we want to enter into them in the spirit of making the negotiations succeed and to bring in those countries to create a wider, stronger Europe and a more stable and secure central Europe.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does not the Foreign Secretary view it ill that the EU should adopt an invidious policy towards the accession of the Baltic states—inasmuch a s Estonia, rightly, has enjoyed a fast track, but Lithuania and Latvia are in the slower lane towards accession—while the United States, in its charter for partnership towards the Baltic states, is adopting an all-embracing policy of open

    131
    welcome and political partnership leading, hopefully, to the accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of all three states?
    Mr. Cook: Like the United States, we seek warm and constructive relations with all three Baltic states. However, the partnership agreement proposed by the United States is a much less complex task than accession to the European Union, with the acceptance of all the European acquis that is necessary. It is the Commission's advice that Estonia is ready to begin the task of detailed negotiation. Until Latvia and Lithuania have achieved the same point of a functioning market economy, it is not necessarily right for them to enter those detailed negotiations. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we do not send a negative signal to those countries that are not in the first wave. That is why all three Baltic states will be invited to that European conference and there is no bar on any member that is not in the first wave catching up on those that are.

    Western Sahara
    Mr. Corbyn: What monitoring he proposes of the United Nations referendum on the future of the Western Sahara. [20415]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We shall monitor the referendum, whenever it takes place, especially through our mission to the United Nations in New York and through our embassies in north Africa. It is too early to say whether we shall send monitors to the referendum itself.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that, during the 24 years of Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, Morocco has constantly obstructed the efforts of the United Nations to bring about peace and to register the people who live or belong to the Western Sahara? Will he ensure that any monitoring that takes place is of the entire process, not merely voting, and that the European Union, the Commonwealth and this country all send observers in the run-up period as well as during the very welcome referendum so that, at last, the people of the Western Sahara can see peace and prosperity, free from military rule?
    Mr. Fatchett: I share my hon. Friend's view that the best way to make progress in the Western Sahara is through the referendum. We are monitoring the initial processes to ensure the objectives to which my hon. Friend refers. We all hope that those processes go speedily and that the referendum will take place on schedule on 8 December.

    Caribbean
    Mr. Mullin: What recent discussions he has had on human rights in the Caribbean; and if he will make a statement. [20416]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office made clear in its mission statement its commitment to human rights. Ministers
    132
    have not yet raised any specific issues, but, in accordance with instructions, our high commissioners and ambassadors regularly raise our concerns with the Governments to which they are accredited. Ministers will reinforce our message on human rights with Caribbean Ministers on suitable occasions.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that a suitable occasion will come up when the Foreign Secretary visits the Caribbean next month? That visit will provide him with a golden opportunity to put into practice our commitment to link respect for human rights with aid, favourable trade arrangements and debt relief. Is my hon. Friend aware that Jamaica, Trinidad and Belize are holding hundreds of people under sentence of death and are anxious to resume a big bout of hangings? Many of those people are held in appalling conditions after an often inadequate trial. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear, when he goes to the Caribbean, that countries that seek assistance from liberal democracies will first have to clean up their act?
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it clear that human rights lie at the centre of her Department's policies as well as those of the Government. We are concerned about prison conditions in the Caribbean and the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned, but we already raise those issues on a bilateral basis. For example, I draw his attention to the recent European Union demarche in Jamaica, concerning Jamaica's decision to opt out of the optional first protocol of the international covenant on civil and political rights, where the British Government were represented. It is our view that we should press all Governments to abandon a death penalty—a change since the previous Government. We shall continue to pursue that ambition both in bilateral relationships and more generally in our dealings with states, not merely in the Caribbean but globally.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Although there are still concerns about human rights in Cuba, does the Minister accept that that island represents 11.5 million out of a total Caribbean population of 30 million and so it is vital that the island is brought into the world economy, despite the efforts of the United States Administration under the Helms-Burton Act? Will he confirm that he is continuing the previous Government's policy of opening up trading links with Cuba and trying to integrate it into the international community?
    Mr. Lloyd: I welcome the constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's question. That position, adopted by the previous Government, has been continued by the present Government. We have concerns about individual aspects of life in Cuba, and we raise those issues bilaterally with the Cubans, but we believe that constructive engagement is the right way in which to make progress. We have made it clear, consistently with the policies of the previous and the present Government, that the Helms-Burton Act has no useful place in relations with Cuba.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has specifically condemned the Jamaicans' treatment of prisoners on death row; that Jamaica is in breach of Privy Council rulings on how long they should be held there; and that Her Majesty's inspector of prisons has said that prison conditions in Jamaica are among the worst that he has ever seen? I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the action that the Government have already taken. Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development continue to bear it in mind that favourable trade treatment and aid must be dependent on an acceptable human rights record?
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it clear that the logic behind our policies on debt forgiveness, for example, is very much concerned with helping the poorest people, and we would not want to confuse the different aspects of our policies. I can nevertheless reassure my right hon. Friend that we shall continue to raise with the Jamaican authorities our concerns about not only prison conditions but the existence of the death penalty in Jamaica; I know that he has been a consistent and vocal advocate of change in Jamaica and that his voice has been heard not only in the House but in Jamaica itself.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Leigh.
    Mr. Garnier: Or even Mr. Garnier.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Garnier is better.
    Mr. Garnier: Not for the first time, Madam Speaker, you are 100 per cent. correct.
    Is the Minister aware that, in some Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, there are insufficient law libraries to enable judges and lawyers acting for criminal defendants in those jurisdictions to address the court adequately on matters of law that could, in the final analysis, lead to questions of life and death? Will he, with the Department of International Development, do all that he can to ensure that we give such assistance as is necessary to improve the law libraries in those countries and to give judicial training to Caribbean judges, so that none of the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) need occur?
    Mr. Lloyd: While I cannot clasim detailed knowledge of the specific problems of law libraries, I can confirm that we are examining ways in which we can make progress, especially in giving assistance not just to the three countries named by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and not only in improving prison conditions but, more generally, in training. We recognise the problem of access not only to the law but to adequate judicial protection. Britain has, over many years, made available expertise from the legal profession here to ensure that there is adequate and improving access to the judicial process in the Caribbean.

    Conventional Arms Exports
    Mr. Pickthall: What plans he has to secure agreement on an EU code of conduct on conventional arms exports during the UK presidency. [20418]
    Mr. Timms: What plans he has to secure agreement on an EU code of conduct on conventional arms exports during the United Kingdom presidency. [20429]
    Mr. Robin Cook: We aim to agree a code of conduct on arms sales with our European Union partners during the United Kingdom presidency.
    Mr. Pickthall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this important initiative, but can he assure us that we shall have a tightly drawn agreement, and not just a rationalisation of existing divergent export policies? For example, will the code ensure that when a contract is refused by one European Union country, it cannot be snapped up by another?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall seek as tight a draft as we can obtain, and that will certainly reflect much of the language in the tougher criteria that we introduced in July. My hon. Friend puts his finger on what must be the single biggest gain of a European code of conduct: the inclusion of a provision that makes it obligatory on any European state that is thinking of taking up a contract that another state has turned down to provide advance notice of that intention. That should ensure that when any member of the European Union turns down such a contract on grounds of reference to human rights, for instance, it will not be undercut by a partner. That will provide a much firmer, stronger base for the policy.
    Mr. Timms: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to achieving high standards in the code rather than looking for the lowest common denominator. I urge him to stand firm by that commitment. How much priority is his Department giving to securing agreement on the code and what progress has been made in preparing the ground for an agreement before the end of the British presidency?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to answer my hon. Friend as he asked the question in answer to which we announced the original code back in July. I am very glad to say that that has resulted in a tightening of our criteria. In answer to my hon. Friend's question today, I have to say that most member states of the European Union have now bilaterally expressed their support for a code of conduct, have applauded what we did last July and would like to see it turned into a European agreement. I hope that we shall soon be ready to take a text to our partners and to get agreement from them.
    Mr. Sayeed: Is the Foreign Secretary certain that the enforcement and policing of the code of conduct will not allow the French to cheat yet again?
    Mr. Cook: As we are currently in negotiation with our French partners on the text, it would be impolitic of me to accept any suggestion that the French ever cheated. We hope to reach an agreement that will ensure that we

    135
    share common standards and will notify each other of what we are doing. That openness is the best way of ensuring that the code is adhered to.
    Mr. Howard: Pending the securing of such an agreement, will the Foreign Secretary look into the delays in granting licences, which are causing British firms to lose orders for equipment to which there cannot be any sensible objection? Is he aware that the firm RBR International asked on 15 May last year for urgent clearance of the sale of helmets to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for use by personnel in Kabul? As a result of the delay in granting that clearance, the order went to Scandinavia and the firm has received no approaches for any equipment from UNHCR since. Is that what the Foreign Secretary intended to achieve by his so-called ethical foreign policy?
    Mr. Cook: I am not familiar with that individual case—[Interruption.] If the House will allow me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has never raised that case with me on any day since 15 May. If he is so concerned, of course we shall be happy to entertain any views that he may wish to express on a particular sale.
    We have adopted criteria which are plainly designed to achieve the outcome that sales of equipment to any regime that might use it for repression will not get a licence. That has to be the right approach. The great consensus of British opinion is behind us. If the Conservative party wishes to opt out of that consensus, that tells us more about the Conservative party than about our policy.

    EU and NATO Enlargement
    Mr. Hawkins: What plans he has to support the application of Latvia and other Baltic states to join the EU and NATO. [20419]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The United Kingdom supports the accession to the European Union of all central European applicants as soon as they are ready, including Latvia and Lithuania, and the targeting of assistance to deal with applicants' shortcomings. At the NATO Madrid summit in July 1997, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with other NATO Heads of State and Government, undertook to review the NATO enlargement process at their next summit in 1999.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank the Minister for that answer. Further to the answer that the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in their EU presidency Her Majesty's Government wish to consider the Baltic states case by case and certainly wish to encourage Latvia and Lithuania to catch up with Estonia so that all three Baltic states accede to NATO and the EU simultaneously?
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, the whole of the European Union have made it clear that the ambition is that all the Baltic states will eventually be members of the EU. The rate at which individual Baltic states achieve that membership depends on their ability to conform to the criteria laid down within the accession process. As my right hon. Friend has made clear today, there is no inevitability that those who are
    136
    now at the front of the queue automatically will not be overtaken by those who make rapid progress. If Latvia and Lithuania make the right kind of progress, their speed of accession will be in their own hands.
    Mr. Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a logical contradiction on the part of Conservative Members, who argue for enlargement of the European Union while attempting to block any sensible measure to improve EU decision making, such as the modest proposals for improvements in qualified majority voting encapsulated in the Amsterdam treaty?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right that there is a logical contradiction at the heart of Conservative party policy on that matter. I would go further by noting that that reflects the logical confusion at the heart of the Conservative party.

    Commonwealth (Democracy)
    Mr. Day: What steps his Department is taking to promote democracy in the Commonwealth. [20420]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's chairmanship, Commonwealth Heads of Government at Edinburgh reaffirmed the Commonwealth's principles of human rights and democracy and set them as criteria for new members. Britain plays an active part in all Commonwealth bodies and in particular the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, whose remit was extended by Commonwealth Heads of Government at Edinburgh.
    Mr. Day: The Minister will be aware that Malawi has made great strides towards a more democratic and accountable system. He may not be aware that a delegation from the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which I had the honour and privilege to be a member, recently visited Malawi. We discovered that the only real help for its people, who were suffering particularly from the threat from AIDS, came from health clinics fully funded by British aid under a programme established by the previous Government. Can the Minister assure the House that he will confer with the Department of International Development to ensure that when that aid programme comes up for review shortly, it is allowed to continue its terrific work, which is desperately needed by the people of Malawi, as a recognition of the strides towards democracy that Malawi has made?
    Mr. Lloyd: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's observations. Under its present Government, there is no doubt that Malawi has made considerable advances towards conformity with international human rights standards. We should all applaud that. AIDS affects huge areas of Africa. That was brought forcefully to my attention by many people when I was in southern Africa last week. I do not want to pretend that our wish to support the very necessary funding of programmes to combat the effects of AIDS should be made conditional, directly in this case, on the human rights performance of

    137
    Governments. The House will agree that the devastation caused in the wake of AIDS transcends many issues on which we would normally place a high priority.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What action are the Government taking, bilaterally or through the Commonwealth, to move Kenya towards democracy?
    Mr. Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As he knows, the Kenyan people had the opportunity to go to the polls over Christmas and the new year. The Government funded the presence of local observers at those elections. There is no doubt that there were some irregularities in those elections. That was the strong view not only of local observers but of the international diplomatic community, and was reflected in the statement put out by the European Union under the British presidency. Clearly, we had concerns. Nevertheless, we have little doubt that President Moi achieved election according to the will of the Kenyan people under the present constitution. It is now incumbent on him to conform to what he has already said about the need for a constitutional convention to update Kenya's constitution, the need to drive hard against corruption and the need to involve opposition politicians in establishing a new future for the country. In our bilateral deals, and as part of European Union, we will ask him to keep to those commitments.
    Mr. Streeter: Does the Minister agree that it is an important right in any democracy that all citizens should have free access to an independent court? Does he therefore share my alarm that farmers who are to have their land confiscated in Zimbabwe will, apparently, be denied access to their courts to challenge the legality of that act? If he does share my alarm, will he take the necessary steps to stop further aid to Zimbabwe until its Government are prepared to act in a more democratic manner?
    Mr. Lloyd: Fortuitously, I was in Zimbabwe last week and I raised that issue with the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister among others. We made it clear that Britain will offer support for the process of land reform provided that a number of conditions are met. First, land reform should be targeted at giving the land to the poor, which is one of our legitimate interests. Secondly, any land reform programme should be transparent, and legal rights under domestic law and in accordance with international obligations should be respected by the Zimbabwean Government. On that basis, we made it clear to that Government that the present land reform scheme simply does not allow those conditions to be met. We have therefore made it clear that Britain will not provide any money for that scheme.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Minister agree that much of the key work of democracy building in the Commonwealth is carried out by and through non-governmental organisations, and that paramount among those is the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? He will be aware that the millennium conference of the CPA will be held in Edinburgh, where it is hoped that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh
    138
    Assembly will be represented as full members. Will he ensure that Her Majesty's Government pledge their full support for that important millennium conference?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the House's attention the valuable work performed by the CPA throughout the Commonwealth not only in bringing parliamentarians together but in insisting that the common standards of acceptance of parliamentary democracy and human rights are the norm within it. The important conference that is due to take place in Edinburgh will receive Government support.

    Indonesia (Arms Exports)
    Dr. Tonge: If he will seek to persuade all EU member states during the United Kingdom's presidency to freeze arms exports to Indonesia. [20421]
    Mr. Fatchett: No, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we aim to agree a code of conduct on arms sales with our European Union partners during the UK presidency.
    Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for that reply, but given that 22 export licences have been signed since 1 May—I have the list here—for arms exports to Indonesia, does he not agree that the United Kingdom would set a good example to the rest of the European Community during our presidency if we unilaterally stopped signing such contracts, especially in view of the Government's earlier statements about a code of conduct and human rights?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady is unfair because the United Kingdom has already taken the lead in the European Union by suggesting a Europewide code of conduct on arms sales. That will set clear criteria along the lines already established in the UK. That is the best way to conduct, organise and regulate the arms industry. We are taking a lead on that and I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to support us.
    Mrs. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally impossible to imagine that the Conservative party could ever agree on a code of conduct towards Europe during this generation or the next?
    Madam Speaker: The question is on Indonesia, not Europe.
    Mr. Fatchett: Or a mixture of both, if you like, Madam Speaker.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the Conservative party could not give a lead in Europe on such an important issue because it is so divided on the very subject of Europe. That is one reason why it lost the election and my hon. Friend benefited by gaining her seat.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is out of order, as was the questioner.
    Mr. Faber: On 9 June last year, the Secretary of State for International Development told the House, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valleys

    139
    (Ann Clwyd), that the Government would provide no further assistance to the Indonesian police force. On 29 August, the Foreign Secretary told an audience in Jakarta that we should make a significant contribution in the field of police training; and the Minister himself has subsequently confirmed in a written answer to me that detailed proposals are being prepared. Did the Secretary of State for International Development inadvertently mislead the House in June, or has she subsequently been overruled?
    Mr. Fatchett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has misinformed himself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made it clear that there would be no financial aid support for the Indonesian police; and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that we would be in a position to help the human rights programme in relation to the Indonesian police. The suggestion that emerged at the end of August was that we should put forward a series of lectures and help the Indonesian police to conduct their affairs in a much more effective way. There is no inconsistency in that position and I must say that I find it strange that Opposition Members wish to criticise our policy: it is important that we should help to improve community policing and the approach taken by the Indonesian police.

    Illicit Arms Trafficking
    Mrs. Mahon: What action he is taking to combat global illicit arms trafficking. [20422]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The problem of illicit arms trafficking is a priority for the Government, as it is estimated to account for more than half the international trade in small arms. We have endorsed the recommendations of the report of the UN panel of experts on small arms. During our presidency of the European Union, we are developing the EU programme on combating and preventing illicit trafficking in conventional arms.
    Mrs. Mahon: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the evil traffickers who supply regimes such as the Taleban are to be condemned. Will he make it a priority of the EU presidency to discuss how to stop illicit arms getting into Afghanistan and to examine the plight of the women of Afghanistan, who are suffering greatly?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recently raised the issue with the Foreign Ministers of several of the states neighbouring Afghanistan, because although there is no doubt that the arms going into Afghanistan come from somewhere, a significant number of the neighbouring states deny any knowledge or responsibility. We have to make progress on this agenda and the European Union intends to do just that: in February, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is hosting a conference with our EU partners in order to exchange ideas on this subject and to discuss how best to move forward on a global basis.
    My hon. Friend's specific point about the abuse of the rights of women in Afghanistan is one which must concern every civilised person and every civilised nation. She rightly draws attention to the fact that the Taleban
    140
    can only draw worldwide condemnation for its ignorance of human rights and for the level of abuse and atrocity against its own civil population.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the most important problem facing this country in terms of illegal arms is that of illegal arms coming into Northern Ireland. Will he tell us what his Department is doing in respect of discussions with our American friends, given that the route often used by terrorists is to purchase weapons legally in the United States and then to import them illegally into Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to discuss in detail the precise nature of the British Government's knowledge of the transmission of illegal arms—that is a basic starting point. However, it is a common position that the House condemns the illicit use of arms in Northern Ireland and the holding and bearing of those arms. As is the case with everyone, if he has specific information about the abuse of particular routes into Northern Ireland, his knowledge must be made available to the Northern Ireland Office and to others, so that we begin to crack down on those routes.

    Invest in Britain Bureau
    Mr. Healey: If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the Invest in Britain Bureau. [20424]
    Mr. Fatchett: The promotion of inward investment is an important objective of my Department. Staff in 30 locations world wide are now actively involved in seeking new investment for the United Kingdom. Since 1 April 1997, the Invest in Britain Bureau has been jointly managed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. Together, we shall continue to promote the attractions of the UK in order to consolidate our position as the preferred location in Europe for inward investment.
    Mr. Healey: Does my hon. Friend agree that good product knowledge is basic to good marketing? Is he aware that the Invest in Britain Bureau has, I understand, been to Rotherham to brief itself just once in the past five years? Will he ensure that the IBB has adequate knowledge of all the areas that it promotes? Will he encourage officials to consider visiting our area so that they may better appreciate the merits of Rotherham and South Yorkshire as excellent locations for inward investment?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on the subject. He may be pleased to know that I was talking to a senior official of the IBB this morning; I spoke of the success of South Yorkshire, particularly the attractions of Rotherham. I have no doubt that Rotherham is now high on the list of potential locations for inward investors—it would be an excellent choice. If investors were to come to Yorkshire, that would be an excellent choice.
    Mr. Boswell: As the Minister has a difficult choice to make between being strictly fair and objective while trying to promote British interests, will he remember to

    141
    ensure that the bureau tells inward investors about the consequences of recent Government changes, including the £5 billion raid on pension funds held by companies, the other increases in taxation, the five-fold rise in interest rates and the imposition of a national minimum wage?
    Mr. Fatchett: I have no difficulty in being fair and objective and promoting Britain's interests; we have a good story to tell. Inward investors are attracted to the United Kingdom and know that, in the Labour Government, they have a secure Government with a long-term future.

    BBC
    Mr. Mitchell: If he will make a statement on Government financial support of (a)BBC World Service and (b) BBC World. [20425]
    Mr. Fatchett: Financial support for the World Service, along with other commitments, is currently being examined as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. The allocation for 1998–99 will remain at £166 million.
    BBC Worldwide Television is a commercial venture and receives no public funding.
    Mr. Mitchell: The House recognises the value of the BBC World Service as a major British asset. The World Service suffered years of enforced meanness from the Conservative Government, and I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the case for a real improvement in the BBC World Service budgets in the coming years. I hope that he will look in particular at the capital budgets which have been unreasonably held back owing to the hope, which turned out to be vain, that private finance initiative funding would be available for such a facility. Will he look particularly at those budgets so that the BBC can not only update its short-wave technology but provide FM transmissions where local conditions allow and move into the provision of television programmes in certain key languages?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to say that every hon. Member recognises the importance of the BBC World Service. Whenever hon. Members travel abroad they are told time and again that the BBC World Service is regarded as the most important source of independent and objective news coverage. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in constant touch with the BBC. I have regular meetings with Sam Younger, the managing director of the BBC World Service. I am sure that our warm and friendly relationship will be maintained in future.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister acknowledge that the BBC World Service is on record as being extremely satisfied with the last financial settlement that it received from the previous Government? Will he guarantee that real resources for the BBC World Service will be maintained?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the BBC is also satisfied with the settlement that is coming forward for the next financial year.

    Taiwan
    Mr. Stringer: What assessment his Department has made of the future level of inward investment from Taiwan. [20426]
    Helen Jones: What assessment his Department has made of future levels of inward investment from Taiwan. [20430]
    Mr. Fatchett: The United Kingdom has an unrivalled record in attracting inward investment from Taiwan, highlighted recently by significant investments by two major Taiwanese companies, Acer Peripherals and ADI. The promotion of the UK as the preferred location in Europe for Taiwanese investors will remain a priority for the Invest in Britain Bureau and the British Trade and Cultural Office in Taipei.
    Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate those organisations on the work that they are doing bringing investment into this country. I wonder whether they would share my opinion—which resulted from my experience when Teco Electric and Machinery Company first came to the Trafford Park estate in Greater Manchester—that the prime reason why Taiwanese companies locate in this country is for access to European markets. Does my hon. Friend agree that enormous damage is being done to that prospect by the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in what he says. The role of Britain as a central player in the European Union is important in attracting inward investment and creating new job and employment opportunities for the British people. Those opportunities would be placed at risk if the Conservative party's policy were put into effect. That is why so many knowledgeable and experienced members of the Conservative party now disagree openly with the Conservative leader and with the shadow Foreign Secretary.
    Helen Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than 10,000 students from Taiwan are currently paying their way through higher education in Britain? Does he agree that this can only serve to strengthen the links between the two countries and encourage further inward investment, and will he undertake to do all that he can to promote those developments?
    Mr. Fatchett: We should always sell the importance of our higher education system. It has a great deal of merit; it is attractive to other countries. It is important to build the person-to-person contacts that the higher education system provides. That is true not only in Taiwan but throughout the world. I give an assurance to my hon. Friend that we will sell British higher and further education in Taiwan and throughout the world.

BILL PRESENTED
  PARLIAMENTARY DECLARATION
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Chris Mullin, Audrey Wise, Mr. Roger Berry, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to provide for a new Declaration to be made by Members of Parliament upon their election to the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 106].

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for detaining the House, but, as you know, Select Committees are held to be extremely important, not only to the House but to the wider public, because they are the forum where hon. Members come together to seek common ground on which they can address complex issues. I wish to draw to your attention the "Agenda" programme, broadcast on Radio 4 last Saturday, which dealt principally with the tobacco industry and problems of the circumvention of British tobacco duty.
During that programme, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who I understand is Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, and to whom I apologise for not having given notice in raising this matter—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no discourtesy intended. The point that the hon. Gentleman made during that broadcast was that he saw no point in having a dialogue, as he put it, with representatives of the tobacco manufacturers.
As you know, Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important issue, not just for the House but for the public. We have had considerable debate on tobacco advertising, on which the Government have altered their policy in response to a very substantial donation to the Labour party. In this case, do you not think that it is inappropriate for the Chairman of a Select Committee to deny access to a key Committee of the House for people who have an important point to raise on behalf of 15 million of our constituents—more people than voted for the Labour party at the recent general election?
Madam Speaker: No. What I know is that it is up to hon. Members to make the comments that they wish to make, and it is not for me to inhibit those comments in any way. What I also know is that the hon. Gentleman should have given notice to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) before raising this matter. I have not seen the "Agenda" programme; I was not in the country at the time.
Mr. David Faber: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In reply to my question during Question Time on the training of the Indonesian police force and any plans that the Government have to help and to give training assistance, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), said that I had misunderstood a reply that had been given by the Secretary of State for International Development. The previous question asked by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) had clearly referred to both training and assistance being given to the Indonesian police force. This is a crucial matter, as the Government are making great play of their ethical foreign policy, particularly with reference to Indonesia. Either the right hon. Lady has misled the House, albeit inadvertently, or the policy has changed.
Madam Speaker: What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Faber: The point of order for you is that I should like either the Minister or the Secretary of State for International Development to make a statement. Either she has been overruled or the policy has been changed.
Madam Speaker: Statements by Ministers are not a matter for me, but no doubt Government Front Benchers have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.

Local Government Boundary Changes (Referendum)
3.34 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of referendums on proposals of the Local Government Commission for England to change local government boundaries; to make the results of such referendums binding; and for connected purposes.
The new Government have made much of their wish for the emergence of democratic initiatives, particularly in local government. Active friends in local government have mentioned to me that the Minister for Local Government and Housing has made encouraging noises on this topic on several occasions. I understand, too, that a Bill is being introduced in another place permitting specific initiatives in this area. However, both that Bill and such words as I have heard from Ministers deal with initiatives that relate to current institutions of local government, based on current boundaries.
That approach is fine where local government boundaries are functioning well and are accepted by the people concerned—but what of the areas where they are not? The Government have already shown that they are not minded to tolerate identifiable communities being trapped in an insensitive system of government with which the people concerned are unhappy. They made it quite clear, for instance, that the ending of the current state of affairs in Scotland and Wales had to be determined by the people of those parts of the United Kingdom themselves. They have also made it clear, most importantly, that the views of the other parts of Britain are to hold no sway in these matters. Accordingly, the Government moved swiftly to enact change by means of the referendums for Scotland and Wales.
I seek the support of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those in the governing party, for the idea of consistency of approach, thereby enabling people to determine which local government areas their long-identifiable communities should belong to. My principle is that the people of the affected areas should decide through the power of a binding referendum.
At the moment, we have a complete and utter shambles. The Local Government Commission for England is a quango. The previous Government wasted parliamentary time replacing the—then perfectly good—boundary commission by setting up this new quango, to no purpose besides giving it new terms of reference to make its members putty in ministerial paws. Members of the commission are doubtless good men and women true, but they know full well, whatever the circumstances they are called in to comment on, that they will have wasted their time if they do not come up with a decision that finds favour with the Secretary of State of the day. They are asked to judge any proposals for change not just according to how much favour they find with the people concerned, but according to the effects that the proposals may or may not have on the people of the adjoining areas, who are not bothered one way or the other about the whole idea.
The commissioners are allowed to obstruct any proposals, such obstruction being based not on hard and fast evidence that they may have about the effects of a

147
proposed change but on speculation or guesswork as to what the financial effects on the given communities might be. They may leave aside any assessment of the potential of the changes for good, financially and in other aspects of good governance; disregarding if they wish any improvements that might accrue from changing the form of local government to one with which local people could identify. The commissioners have treated the adult population in my part of the country like children who are not to be trusted with taking into their own hands responsibility for the consequences of determining their own affairs.
I have read that the Government are contemplating giving the populations of various areas the power, using a referendum, to determine whether local government spending should be allowed to exceed Government guidelines. If that is so, it is in line with the direction of my Bill.
The present position is, in short, that in order to recommend change to the Secretary of State, the local government quango must prove a negative. It must prove that the proposed change will not create a net harm to some undefined portion of the people, who may not be bothered one way or the other by the suggested change. How are such matters to be decided? The answer is that the quango seems to please itself.
One thing is certain, however: the commissioners do not please the people of the communities in question. The experience of dealing with the commission has been described by some of those who have had occasion to do so in my part of the north-west as trying to knit with spaghetti.
There has always been a particular frustration that anyone wishing to introduce a petition for change has no idea whether it will ever be translated into a formal proposal for consideration by the commission, let alone whether it will become the basis for positive action.
The commission's timetable is kept full, so its limited resources are stretched. To respond to a major structural review of local government in one area within a short time, as the people of Southport have had to do on two occasions, has taken phenomenal effort by a dedicated set of people, including myself, working to achieve the public will.
For example, in 1995 a ballot was organised in Southport, with the people of the town being polled on a particular prospect for change and the status quo. Twenty-two thousand people spoke with such an overwhelming and convincing majority of 19:1 that the chairman of the boundary commission, as it was then called, felt that he had no option but to request the then Secretary of State to instruct him to conduct a special review of Southport's position. The Secretary of State rewarded that request by winding up the boundary commission and caused further years of delay by pushing through a Bill to create the new commission for England, which is no better than its predecessor.
Through those years of delay, the people of Southport held firm. When the review finally came, we presented our evidence in technical detail, advocating the advantages of change, and citing the vast numbers of local people who supported such a change. What did the commission do? It listened intently to boasts of
148
efficiency from the officers of Sefton council, of which Southport is part, who did not want Southport to break free, and watched as the same officers orchestrated a campaign to maintain power over Southport.
The commission took evidence from various spurious community groups and seemed to give equal consideration to the opinions of many of those unrepresentative bodies and to the views of thousands of Southport residents who had consistently voted for change over the past 23 years. It also commissioned a small public opinion poll from MORI, in which the questions were phrased in a way that was hopelessly irrelevant and confusing to respondents and subject to gross misinterpretation.
Given such shoddy behaviour from the quango, we in Southport were not particularly surprised when the commission made an interim recommendation that the status quo should prevail, provided that Sefton council gave the commission within the following 12 weeks some evidence of its ability to introduce changes in the way in which it dealt with local government in communities such as Southport.
We were downcast, but then the amazing happened—or, perhaps in the case of Sefton council, it was not so amazing. After ignoring the Local Government Commission's findings throughout the summer of 1997, Sefton failed to submit to the commission any evidence at all. One can imagine the disbelief of thousands of people in Southport when the commission returned to us in November to tell us that we could ignore its previous document, together with the conditions that it attached to maintaining the status quo and its precisely defined single, viable, alternative proposition for a Southport and Formby unitary authority. The people's faith in fairness and accountability in the democratic process was shattered.
For reasons that were not disclosed, the commission decided to ignore not only its own previously published criteria for decision making, but the votes in a properly organised referendum of the thousands of people affected.
Southport is one example, among others. That is why I feel that there is no option but to introduce the Bill, which requires the Secretary of State to cause any local authority—
Madam Speaker: I must call the hon. Gentleman to order.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Bob Russell, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Adrian Sanders, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Brian Cotter, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Richard Allan.

Local Government Boundary Changes (Referendum)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES (REFERENDUM)
  Mr. Ronnie Fearnaccordingly presented a Bill to provide for the holding of referendums on proposals of the Local Government Commission for England to change local government boundaries; to make the results of such referendums binding; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 107].
Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [12 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Which amendment was, 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."—[Mr. Ancram.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I wish to make an appeal to the House for short speeches. I see hon. Members in the Chamber who sat through the entire debate yesterday while waiting to be called; I was not able to call them. I wish to call them today in addition to other hon. Members who I know also want to speak in today's debate. Voluntary restraint in the length of speeches would be helpful all round.
  3.45 pm
  The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): We had a useful debate yesterday, and I hope to take up some of its themes today. I was particularly grateful yesterday for the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I pay tribute to the contribution that he and his party made to the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention where, as he remarked yesterday, sleeves were rolled up and hard work was done. Without that groundwork, we might not be debating the Bill today. I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that the Bill represents an opportunity to create a bold new constitutional settlement that will give Scotland the best of both worlds, which is its own Parliament firmly within the United Kingdom.
  As one who shares the strong view that devolution need not and must not become a Trojan horse within the Union, I was greatly encouraged by the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who was anxious to warn that the Bill is a reckless measure that will lead to the destruction of the Union. If the argument that the right hon. Gentleman advanced represented the true strength of that case, we can all sleep sound in the knowledge that the Union is indeed secure.
  I recall the days not so long ago when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was describing the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention as laying the ground for nothing more than a puppet Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has since thought it prudent to retreat from that position, for the simple reason that the general election results showed just how far out of step he, too, was with the views of the Scottish people.
  The work of the convention led with remarkable accuracy to the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland within
  150
  weeks of the general election. That White Paper led with remarkable accuracy to the Bill that is before the House. Everyone who has been involved in the three stages of that process is entitled to take enormous satisfaction from the speed, efficiency and integrity with which it has been pursued. As the party of government, the Labour party is entitled to take particular satisfaction from the historical reality, which not even our meanest-minded critics will ever be able to contradict, which is that we promised it and we delivered it. Above all, that achievement will be identified with the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Much was made in the debate yesterday of constitutional architecture, the position of Scotland in the Union, relationships between the devolved Parliament, the Administration and our counterparts in London, the position in relation to Europe and financial provisions for the Parliament. Those are all important issues, which must be debated carefully.
  I was struck yesterday by the gloom and pessimism that were being spread around by the right hon. Member for Devizes and some of his colleagues. In contrast, the Government are confident that the settlement, as described in the White Paper, endorsed by the people of Scotland and now translated into the Bill, will produce better government in Scotland and strengthen the Union. We have recognised the desire for change and modernisation and have responded positively and constructively. There is no doubt in our minds that the package of measures in the Bill provides the basis for a stable settlement that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Will the Minister explain the difference between this measure and the Scotland Act 1978, which he opposed so vehemently and so successfully in Scotland, and when he was on the same side as I was during that referendum campaign?
  Mr. Wilson: As I recall, the right hon. Gentleman supported that legislation. He, too, will remember the substantial differences between that measure and this one. [Interruption.] I am sorry; he opposed it. The precise chronology is obviously important in these matters. There are enormous differences between the 1978 legislation and the Bill, many of which I can claim prescience of as I argued for them, most notably the inclusion of tax-raising powers—they were absent from the 1978 legislation—which give the Scottish Parliament a fiscal authority and a legitimacy that it would not have had if they were not available to it.
  However, let us cast aside the gloom and doom of the right hon. Gentleman and turn to the central and essential fact: the Bill gives the Scottish Parliament the powers to make laws for Scotland, and that substantial scope to do so will be devolved to Edinburgh. The Bill sets out clearly and in necessary detail the powers that will be reserved to Westminster, and the many exceptions to those reservations, which will broaden and extend the devolved powers of the Parliament.
  The fact that anything that is not listed in the Bill is devolved and will become the business of the Parliament in Edinburgh means that a very wide range of responsibilities will be devolved. The powers that will be devolved are in areas that are crucial to Scotland's

  151
  economic and social well-being: health, education and training, local government, social work and housing, economic development and transport, law and home affairs, environment, agriculture, forestry and fishing.
  Devolution of the Scottish courts and legal system will also mean that responsibility for that fundamental part of the Scottish constitution will lie where it logically belongs, while the Bill makes provisions that protect the stature and independence of the judiciary. Legislators elected solely by voters living in Scotland will have the power to pursue a distinctive agenda that responds to the needs and aspirations of the Scottish people. There will be an opportunity to devote significant time to debating and legislating on Scottish issues, some of which may have been neglected for many years.
  I already sense that some far-reaching debates are beginning within Scotland about what the Parliament might do in areas that are within my current portfolio. I shall say a little about each of the main areas that fall within it: education, industry, tourism and the Gaelic language.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: It is encouraging to ask a question of somebody with such a consistent track record on these matters. On the devolved matters, clause 27(7) says that the power of this Parliament to legislate even in devolved areas will not be affected by the legislation. It is an all-catching, all-encompassing clause. Can the Minister give the House an example of one area that the Westminster Parliament will still want to legislate on and overturn the will of the Scottish Parliament in devolved areas? If he cannot, why have the clause?
  Mr. Wilson: The clause, as the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly been told, is a simple statement of fact rather than a prediction of events. It is very difficult to think of an instance in which it would be invoked.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: If one reads the small print of the Bill, the circumstances in which the clause would be invoked seem implicit. Clause 54 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct that the Scottish Parliament shall pass certain legislation to keep it in conformity with our international obligations. Presumably, the Minister agrees that if the Scottish Parliament were not to pass such legislation, that would be an instance in which this Parliament would pass legislation for it.
  Mr. Wilson: If the Scottish Parliament were ever to fall into such irresponsible hands that it passed legislation that was in direct contradiction of international obligations, it would be right and proper that it should not have the power to pursue that further. That eventuality should not come about, because the power to renege on international commitments is not being devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend referred to the independence of the judiciary. Will Ministers look benignly on an amendment to clause 89 to double-lock the independence of the judges, particularly
  152
  in relation to their removal, rather than their appointment? Should not the Government look again at the tenure of the judiciary?
  Mr. Wilson: I understand that the position is being strengthened, because a two-thirds majority of the Parliament would be required to dismiss a judge. My hon. Friend will be entitled to pursue such points tenaciously in Committee.
  I should like to say a few words about—
  Mr. Ancram rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I shall give way for the last time. I am conscious of Madam Speaker's strictures.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Clause 27(7) is important. I was dealing with it yesterday. Will it be possible for a private Member's Bill in this House to change the law on a devolved matter in Scotland?
  Mr. Wilson: I understand that the answer is no. If the right hon. Gentleman needs a fuller reply or explanation, I shall be pleased to provide one after the debate.
  I should like to say a little about the main areas in my portfolio—education, industry, tourism and the Gaelic language. Our system of schooling and higher education in Scotland has always been distinct in its legislation and its administration. I think that a majority of those present today are products of that system, and I am sure that we all share a belief in its merits and a concern to build on those merits. Our system already has a strong Scottish identity and its own legislative framework. The vital interests of our schoolchildren and students should not have to queue for parliamentary time and attention. The Scottish Parliament will look at those issues from a Scottish perspective. I trust that it will not be tempted to import measures that reflect the prevailing Westminster ideology, but enjoy no popular support in Scotland, such as the measures that were so damagingly imposed on Scotland under the previous Administration. I look forward to the Scottish Parliament stimulating all those in the education service and in further and higher education to continue to build on the achievements of the Scottish education system.
  The Parliament will be responsible for policy and legislation on higher education and the support of students. We have had administrative devolution for some time, although funding for universities was devolved only in 1992—another significant improvement on the 1978 legislation. There was a suspicion that higher education could become inward-looking and parochial, but the past five years have proved the sceptics wrong. The Scottish higher education sector produces high-quality, employable graduates. I understand that Scotland produces proportionately more graduates than any European country apart from Finland. Research evidence shows that our graduates earn 15 per cent. more than they would had they not attended university, representing a considerable contribution to the Scottish economy.
  The breadth of Scottish education is also highly valued. The traditional honours degree provides a longer period in which students can consider wider aspects of their

  153
  education. There is no point in being distinctive for its own sake. We need to be clear about why we want that extra year's study and about its costs and benefits.
  One concern frequently raised is that the extra year's study will act as a disincentive for some students who are expected to make a contribution towards their tuition costs. Scottish students have always borne higher costs in maintenance and earnings forgone as a result of longer study. I have ended the need for a Scottish student to pay more in fees for an equivalent qualification than someone at an English university. Around 40 per cent. of our students will pay no fees in any year of their course.
  That is a preamble to the fact that, as has been mentioned, it will be open to the Scottish Parliament to change the new student support arrangements if it chooses to do so. That would mean forgoing around £140 million of income for higher and further education and a return to the underfunding left behind by the previous Government. That will be a matter for the judgment of the Parliament.
  We also have some exceptional centres of research in our universities. Scotland is ranked third in the world in research publications per head of population. The responsibility for the research councils will remain with Westminster. Scottish universities, which welcome that proposal, will continue to access UK funds for specific research projects. The sector has welcomed the Government's proposals as a means to ensure that research activity maintains its high standards against its counterparts across the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. The reservation strengthens the Parliament. It maintains a UK system where appropriate, but provides the Parliament with powers to support research in, for example, higher education via the funding council, or by commissioning its own research through the Executive.
  The Scottish Parliament, of course, will also have responsibility for further education. Colleges will play an increasing part in helping Scottish people to equip themselves with the skills needed for a growing, healthy and competitive economy. We are already encouraging and seeing those developments through Government programmes such as the new deal and our emphasis on lifelong learning and widening participation, especially in further education. I want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament takes over and can build on a strong FE sector with a clear vision of its key role in the future of Scotland.
  I come now to the industry remit. Much of the basic infrastructure within which Scottish industry and commerce operate will continue by virtue of the reservations in the Bill. That is an important aspect of the settlement proposed in the Scotland Bill, and one which will safeguard the benefits of a single market for Scottish business in the UK and beyond. In the framework of that single market, devolution will present important new opportunities for business to present its concerns and make its voice heard in Scotland. Across a wide range of devolved topics, the Scottish Parliament and Executive will have direct powers over services and decisions that affect industry and commerce. Perhaps more important, the Scottish Parliament will be anxious to encourage and support all aspects of business activity.
  Legislative responsibility for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will pass to the Scottish Parliament. The bodies, in turn, will continue to delegate statutory responsibilities for economic development, environmental renewal and training to local enterprise
  154
  companies. Immensely valuable organisations, such as Locate in Scotland and Scottish Trade International, will also be accountable to Parliament. I have not the slightest doubt that all those bodies will continue to serve Scotland's interests as effectively in future as they do at present. Equally, I might add that in order to be effective, they must be allowed to operate at arm's length from government. That is a reality which will not change with the advent of a Scottish Parliament.
  As became extremely apparent to me on recent visits to the far east, Scotland does well in the area on its own account, and also benefits greatly from its place in the United Kingdom. The UK commercial, trade and diplomatic presence in every corner of the globe serves us well. We add a great deal of value through our Scottish-based effort. That is the best of both worlds, which we shall maintain and build on under the legislation.
  A Scottish Parliament in the United Kingdom can also bring great benefit to Scotland's tourism industry, which I am sure we all recognise is a major and growing contributor to the Scottish economy. It is therefore right that the development of the industry and the work of the Scottish tourist board should be among the important issues to be subject to the democratic control of the Scottish Parliament. It is the kind of industry whose status and public profile should benefit from the new political focus through which it will be scrutinised. The Scottish Parliament will be able to make the focused and informed contribution that tourism requires.
  However, we see the benefits—the argument of the best of both worlds—of our continuing place in the United Kingdom, as the tourism industry will also remain able to call on the experience, resources and expertise of the British Tourist Authority, which has promoted Scotland well overseas for many years. That will be a real benefit and is greatly appreciated by those who are in the front line of the industry.
  Mr. Alan Clark: I am glad to hear the Minister draw attention to the tourism industry in such a sympathetic way. Will the Scottish Parliament have complete powers of decision and arbitration over interests that sometimes come into conflict with the tourist industry? I draw to his attention a case with which he is familiar. The Cairngorm funicular railway is totally opposed by all environmental lobbies in the highlands, yet subsists on the argument that it might be beneficial to the tourist industry—discounting, of course, the fact that many tourists will be greatly offended by the sight of an ugly funicular railway. That is an example of something that one would like to be entirely within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that it would be?
  Mr. Wilson: Of course, many aspects of the Cairngorm funicular debate will be devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Offhand, I cannot think of any that would not. For instance, there is the conservation argument. The right hon. Gentleman is not right to say that everyone opposes the railway. Scottish Natural Heritage has approved it in its refined form.
  The tourism element, too, will certainly be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Many people in the area, as well as the development agency, support the idea. The other

  155
  aspect with which I have a direct involvement is the economic development responsibility, as a substantial amount of the money will come from public sources. All those would be devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.
  The funicular railway is a good example of a matter that I would expect to be the subject of lively debate within the Scottish Parliament—a debate which would then inform the decisions both of the agencies involved and of Ministers.
  It is also interesting to note that, in future, as at present, we must have regard to European environmental directives. Ultimately, another element in the funding package will be an application for European regional development fund money, so there is another European element, too. The proposal presents an interesting case study of a matter that is clearly of great public concern, with strong feelings on both sides of the argument, which would be far more fully debated in a public forum than it has been in present circumstances.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If, under clause 54, the Government decided to cancel a Scottish law passed after much discussion because they considered that it was in breach of what are referred to as convention rights, what could the Scottish Parliament do about it? Would it have an appeal? Would there be anywhere for it to go?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman would have to give me a hypothetical example. If he cares to present me with one, I shall try to answer his question. Within the areas of devolved responsibility, laws passed by the Scottish Parliament are not open to cancellation. That will not happen.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Wilson: No, I must try to respect Madam Speaker's suggestion, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman at a later stage, if he can be patient. I must move on now—although the intervention by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was helpful, because it allowed me to cite a good example of an issue on which we would be able to have a far fuller democratic debate than has hitherto been possible.
  Mr. Alan Clark: But rail transport and grants are reserved.
  Mr. Wilson: Funicular railways are not the kind of railway on which the right hon. Gentleman doubtless commutes daily.
  I shall now say a word about the fourth in my selection of responsibilities—the Gaelic language. I am the first Minister to have been appointed with special responsibility for that language. I would be the first to recognise that the previous Administration did many good things in connection with Gaelic, and the present Government's first priority is education, especially advancing the cause of Gaelic-medium education and supporting pre-school provision.
  156
  We also support a wide range of cultural organisations, and the funding of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee, currently a matter for the Scottish Office, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That area of broadcasting as a whole will be a responsibility of the Parliament. I hope that it will carry forward the work currently being done and give due place to the language in the organisation of its affairs—but that will be a matter for the Parliament itself. Historically, most of the reasons for the decline of Gaelic have been self-inflicted, from within Scotland, and I hope that we shall do better in future.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as the Minister responsible for Gaelic. We all know of his support for, and keen interest in, the language. Does he agree that it would be sensible to amend the Bill to include a clause that secured the status of Gaelic, similar to the status secured for the Welsh language in the Welsh Language Act 1993?
  Mr. Wilson: It is not for me to say what will take place in Committee, but I am sure that an hon. Member will try to raise that matter in Committee. The hon. Lady—whose long and consistent interest in this subject I recognise—indicates that she may be the one who seeks to do so. Some interesting things are happening on the issue of status which, I hope, will not all have to wait for the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament will have extensive powers in that area, and I hope that it will use them sympathetically, wisely and with a sense of historic obligation.
  That is a summary of virtually all the powers that I am currently privileged to exercise through the Scottish Office and which will become the responsibility of what Parliament. It illustrates the depth and breadth of what is being devolved.
  Yesterday, some Tory Members became exercised about the UK-wide structure of devolution and what they regarded as an ad hoc approach. They took the view that if we could not have a rigid unitary state—which they perhaps prefer—we needed a solution that treated all parts of the Union in an identical fashion. I see that train of thought; it starts from wanting to control everything from the centre and, failing that, having a neat symmetry for the entire country. The same mentality doubtless resulted in the map of Africa having straight lines drawn all over it.
  Mr. James Paice: I can assure the Minister that that is not the motivation of those of us who made that argument yesterday. We did so because we believe in the equality of Members of this House. Can he make it clear that the Government accept that, as a result of the Bill, there will be hon. Members with different levels of power over the activities and public services provided in the areas that they represent?
  Mr. Wilson: I do not accept that. We could get into an argument about constitutional theory. A decision by the whole House to devolve certain powers for legislative purposes to the Scottish Parliament would doubtless result in a difference in the nature of hon. Members' work load. However, in constitutional theory or in practical terms, it would not create two levels of Members of Parliament, and neither should it be allowed to do so.

  157
  The view that everything has to be the same throughout the United Kingdom is one which we reject. The United Kingdom did not grow up on a symmetrical, neat constitutional basis, and neither can power be devolved away from the centre on a symmetrical, neat constitutional basis.
  The two underlying principles of devolution are that government that is closer to the people should be better government, and that the system of devolution chosen must fit the needs and desires of those involved. The Bill is specifically designed to produce better government for the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom. Similarly, the proposals in the Government of Wales Bill are specifically designed to meet circumstances in Wales. Our proposals for the English regions—which will be subject to the wishes of people living in those regions—are aimed at improving government in those areas. This seems to me to be a matter of common sense, as well as constitutional propriety.
  We are not afraid of devolution and decentralisation; neither are we afraid to listen to what people want and to tailor our proposals to those wishes. Asymmetric devolution not only can work but, in my view, is the best way to improve the governance of the United Kingdom. Different histories, different geographies, different identities and different aspirations all require different solutions. In the view of the Labour Government, that is not a threat, but a challenge.
  Let us consider for a moment precisely how the Parliament might go about pursuing a distinctive Scottish agenda. For a start, I would expect the Parliament and the Executive accountable to it to be good at listening as well as acting. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, it will be for the Parliament to decide how it will operate, but I am sure that when it makes its decisions, it will want to experiment with new ways of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny.
  The Scottish Parliament will be geographically closer to the people it represents. Because of the voting system that we are putting in place, it should also be a fairer reflection of opinion in the country. In a relatively small country, it will be possible for ideas, proposals and even draft Bills to be debated openly, sensibly and constructively.
  I am delighted that there are already signs that interest groups from across the spectrum are thinking seriously about how to grasp the opportunities that devolution of substantial powers will present. I welcome that willingness to engage with the future and, in particular, the constructive note that has been struck throughout the business community in Scotland since 11 September. All that bodes well for the future.
  As I said, the right hon. Member for Devizes showed a depressing pessimism about the quality and maturity of future political debate and about each Parliament's ability to seek an effective working relationship. He argued that our proposals had to be tested against the worst possible case and suggested that little in them passed that test. That view is unnecessarily doom laden.
  The authors of the White Paper and the Bill have been widely congratulated on the clarity with which they set out the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and Executive as opposed to those of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. The Bill also establishes robust processes for resolving disputes over the
  158
  Parliament's powers—myself. Clarity and robustness are key elements in achieving a stable settlement. Of particular importance is the fact that the responsibility for deciding whether the Scottish Parliament has acted within its powers will be subject to judicial scrutiny, ultimately by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the decision will not be made by the UK Government.
  The approach to determining the boundary between devolved and reserved matters was taken on the ground that it was the best way to build stability into the settlement. The White Paper pointed out that the approach taken in 1978 of defining the areas to be devolved would have required frequent updating and might have given rise to regular legal arguments about whether issues were devolved.
  Mr. James Wallace: May I draw the Minister's attention to clause 29(2), which states that subordinate legislation may be used to make modifications to the schedule that sets out the reserved powers? Clearly, no one would suggest that that power might be abused by the Secretary of State, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that this Bill, when enacted, will last for some considerable time and that, as it stands, a Government who were hostile to devolution in Scotland could use that subordinate legislation to take powers away from the Scottish Parliament? A safeguard might be required.
  Mr. Wilson: That is an important question, and there is an important answer. That could be done only by agreement, and that is the safeguard for which the hon. and learned Gentleman is looking.
  Briefly, on the West Lothian question, in the context of setting up a Scottish Parliament, it is only fair that the requirement for a minimum number of Scottish seats should be dropped. In future, of course, Westminster will no longer be the forum for scrutinising as much of Scotland's domestic legislation. That strengthens the case for dealing with the present disparity in constituency sizes between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it is also important to note—as Opposition Members tend to forget—that there are other statutory requirements. For example, the need to give due weight to geographical considerations and local ties will still apply. I have dealt with the question, and we do not believe that it would be right to introduce a mechanism to limit voting rights for Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies. That would be against the spirit and the theory of devolution.
  The Scotland Bill has the blessing of the Scottish people, but should also be good for democracy within the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, as we move into the second day of debate on the Bill, I must reiterate the Government's philosophical position. We believe that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament together with a Welsh Assembly and, in due course, regional assemblies in England, will modernise and enhance democracy and, as a result, strengthen the United Kingdom itself. The experience of other countries throughout the developed world is that a strong and vibrant devolutionary system is perfectly compatible with loyalty to a larger nation state.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry, I must continue.

  159
  Fulfilling the aspirations of the Scottish people for a devolved Parliament is the surest way of cementing the United Kingdom. Continuing to ignore the legitimate demand would have been the most likely way to weaken it. Margaret Thatcher was a bigger threat than the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan could ever hope to be, and the United Kingdom was strong enough to survive even her.
  A brief survey of recent European history shows us that devolution works, and works well. In Germany, Spain, Italy and Belgium, devolving power from the centre to the regions has not led to break-up; indeed, they are some of the most affluent, successful and best functioning countries in the world. Every European country has separatist movements comparable to the one in Scotland, and there is no example in the modern history of western Europe of devolved government leading to the success of any of those movements. That is the real lesson of history, conflicting directly with the bombast of nationalism.
  We have reacted in direct response to the wishes of the Scottish people, but we were determined not to get out of step with them. That is why we legislated for a referendum in Scotland. That democratic safeguard was also attacked by our opponents, but we were right, and our democratic credentials were strengthened as a result.
  Now that the electorate have spoken so decisively in favour of a Parliament with law-making and tax-varying powers, the onus is on us as a Government and, I suggest, on all of us as parliamentarians, to ensure that we deliver the best possible legislation, based firmly on the proposals endorsed in the referendum.
  Clearly, there are differences of view between parties, but that should not hinder the process of constructive scrutiny that we hope will take place over the next few months. The Government are certainly prepared to consider sensible amendments on points of detail that do not cut across the White Paper principles. I hope that the debate today and in Committee will be conducted in that spirit.
  4.20 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I shall try to be as brief as possible, Madam Speaker, given your earlier strictures.
  I welcome the decision to have all our Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House. That says a great deal about the Secretary of State's willingness to have proper constitutional debate. I ask him, even at this late stage, to have a word with the Secretary of State for Wales to find out whether the same courtesies might be given to the House on the Government of Wales Bill.
  Yesterday, many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, said that they had long supported the concept of devolution. Many said that, naturally, as a result of collective responsibility, they had never felt able to say that openly in the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made such a speech, and an excellent speech it was.
  I would never pretend to be among that number: I did not want devolution as proposed by the Government; I argued and campaigned against it—that is the honourable course in a democracy—but my side lost. I
  160
  disagreed that it was the best way in which to safeguard the Union, but I agree with the Government about two things: it is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people; and it must be made to work. No shame attaches to those Conservative Members who argued against and lost, but I hope that everyone will try to make the system work and not obstruct what clearly has a democratic legitimacy.
  The Secretary of State says that his plans safeguard the Union, and I accept that that is his genuine belief, so we should be working in roughly the same direction—he looks worried about what the catch to that sentence will be, but he need not, because it means exactly what it says—but, if the settlement of the Bill is to endure, it must suit not only Scotland's needs but those of the whole United Kingdom, and it must be fair, just and equitable to all its constituent parts.
  Despite what the Minister has just said, we cannot change the constitution of one part of the United Kingdom without fundamentally changing that of the rest: when we alter the arrangements for one set of Members of Parliament, we automatically alter them for others. The Bill's ability to endure will have to be judged against its openness and fairness to all Members of Parliament from all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Some matters may best be dealt with in Committee, but I want to take issue with what the Minister said about the West Lothian question and to touch on the relationship with local government, the relationship with Europe, and some other unresolved matters that we feel exist in the Bill.
  Those who seek an answer to the West Lothian question in the Bill will be disappointed: within the framework of devolution as proposed here, there is no perfect answer, because devolution means an unequal status. What the Minister referred to as asymmetric devolution is a constitutional hotch-potch, with Scottish Members of Parliament able to vote on English matters, but English Members of Parliament not able to vote on Scottish matters, and even Scottish Members of Parliament not able to vote on Scottish matters that affect their own constituency. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said yesterday:
  "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."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 83.]
  Some arrangement must be found. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was not in the Chamber when he was being baited by the hon. Member for Linlithgow yesterday. I am sure that if he reads Hansard he will enjoy what his hon. Friend said about clause 27.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill takes its confidence from the large majority that the Government currently enjoy? Does he agree that in a future House of Commons, in which the majority was accorded to a Labour Government by Scottish Members of Parliament alone, the taking of decisions by Scottish Members on matters

  161
  relating to, for example, my constituency, would be a recipe for the friction that the Government claim that they are trying to avoid?
  Dr. Fox: There are many in-built frictions in the Bill. I shall come to the point that my hon. Friend raises in a moment.
  An answer to the West Lothian question requires either a federalist solution, providing a balanced solution constitutionally without the United Kingdom, or independence, which would remove the question altogether. Neither has public support, but, within the devolutionary framework in the Bill, that answer is not available.
  Two questions need to be asked. Do we need to balance the inequality and diminish the unfairness, as my hon. Friend the Member fo Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) mentions, and, if so, how do we go about doing that? The Government propose that we reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to the equivalent of English constituency levels. That is to acknowledge the question, but not to answer it. We could reduce the number to below what would be required to give parity, as was the case in Ulster. We could have designated English legislation. We could have English-only days.
  Whichever way is found round the question, the fact remains that, as a result of the proposals in the Bill, we shall no longer be equal Members of Parliament. No amount of arguing by the Minister will change that. We shall lose our equal status within this House as a result of the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The asymmetry about which the hon. Gentleman complains existed in the previous Parliament. Northern Ireland Members voted on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill—a measure which did not extend to Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?
  Dr. Fox: The question was raised on many occasions yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The question of scale cannot be ignored here. We are talking about large numbers of Scottish Members—72—as opposed to a small number of Northern Ireland Members. The scale and the over-representation give added weight to arguments such as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid"Kent about the backlash that would result from the Bill.
  Failure to tackle the West Lothian question will provide a dangerous tension within our constitutional relationship. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent alludes to funding. How long are Members of Parliament from the north of England likely to want to continue funding Scotland at a higher level than their own constituencies within the current funding formula? How could they justify that to their constituents? That is likely to cause a huge amount of tension. It makes a mockery of the idea that a Scottish Parliament could reduce the level of taxation there without a subsequent reduction in the Consolidated Fund.
  The House of Commons and English Members of Parliament would be unlikely to sit back while a Scottish Parliament reduced its income tax and to remain willing to contribute the same amount of money through the Treasury.
  Mr. John Swinney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the study carried out before the general
  162
  election by the previous Secretary of State, Michael Forsyth, for which a firm of consultants were commissioned to compare local government expenditure per head in England and Scotland? When the firm got down to comparing apples with apples, it found that there was absolutely no difference between Scotland and England.
  Dr. Fox: I do not believe for a moment what the hon. Gentleman says. He will no doubt get a chance to use Scottish nationalist creative accountancy techniques on the House later, but on a head-by-head basis, public expenditure is clearly higher in Scotland. In the referendum, we argued that that question would come up early in the passage of this legislation.
  In government, we accepted the Barnett formula as a reasonable mechanism for assessing and redressing need in Scotland, as part of the constitutional architecture that existed then. When that constitutional architecture was deconstructed, it was inevitable that questions would be asked. They have been asked in Select Committees not by Conservatives but by English Labour Members. That is where the tension will arise. The question will need to be addressed if we are to have a stable constitutional relationship.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I have a simple question. I do not want a detailed answer. [Laughter.] No, no, it will all come in time. May I ask whether, as a matter of principle, the Opposition spokesman will produce solutions to these conundrums in Committee?
  Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State must contain his curiosity until we get there. On the funding formula, a continuing problem with the assessment of need—we will advocate that it needs to be addressed—is the sensitivity and specificity of information. We will table amendments on all the matters that I have mentioned.
  The Minister spoke about the Government's willingness to reduce the number of Scottish Members in this House. If he accepts the principle of the need to reduce their number, why cannot it be done for the general election that immediately follows the setting up of a Scottish Parliament? Is it, as a Labour Back Bencher said yesterday, that the boundary commission cannot get it done in time—which, frankly, I do not believe—or is there a point that we have not yet considered? No answer comes forward, because there is no logic in what the Government propose. There is no reason why, when the Scottish Parliament is put in place, the reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament could not be made for the next general election. We hope that the Government will rethink that. Their proposal is illogical and has no justification.
  What will be the role of Scottish Members of Parliament in this House? I cannot speak for Labour Members, but if housing, health and education were taken out of my mailbag, it would be very small. Labour Members smile, but I should be surprised if their mailbags were substantially different. What will the work load be that entitles so many Scottish Members of Parliament to sit in the House after the Scottish Parliament has been put in place? How will they justify a full salary for only a fraction of the work that they do now? More importantly, what will be the role of the regional list Members of the Scottish Parliament in Scotland? More specifically, what will be the role of political parties?

  163
  I have served in the Government Whips Office. I know the power of patronage and the techniques that Whips may use to twist arms. However, there is no power remotely as great as that of dropping people from a party list if they do not back the party line. Labour Members who smile may not be smiling much longer. Those who have a rebellious tendency, those who have not yet been through the Millbank cloning process, may come to regret previous rebellious comments when they are dropped from their party's list for having views of their own. Proportional representation is always a mechanism for increasing the power of parties. I do not believe that that is healthy. I have never believed in PR and never will do. I can give an assurance, though only on behalf of my party, that no candidate will appear on a list for our party who has not stood for a constituency in the Scottish Parliament. If candidates are unwilling to face the electorate directly, they should not be able to find their way on to a party list.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am interested to hear that, because all the political parties in Scotland are looking at how to deal with that matter. Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that the lists will normally comprise a number of candidates somewhat in excess of the number of constituencies for the Euro-area from which they will be compiled.
  Are we now being told that the Tories in Scotland will not put forward 129 candidates? That appears to be the impact of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We should all be interested to learn that the Tories intend to put forward just 79 candidates, not 129.
  Dr. Fox: Seventy-nine seats in a Scottish Parliament would do us absolutely fine. I would be very happy with that, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would be, too. We will be fighting all the constituencies, but our lists will not comprise people who have been unwilling to face the Scottish electorate in the past. No one will go forward in the name of the Conservative party who has not been willing to face the Scottish people at the ballot box. That is a correct principle for any democratic party to follow.
  I was sorry to note that the Secretary of State was unable to give us an assurance yesterday that Millbank will not veto his party lists. Certainly no veto will be exercised by the Conservative party south of the border when we choose our constituency lists.
  Yesterday, much was made about the relationship between Scotland and Europe, and the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Ministers who currently may attend Council of Ministers meetings. It is obvious that any change in the United Kingdom structure will also affect the relationship between Scotland and Europe, but Ministers did not quite grasp that point yesterday.
  At present, Scottish Office Ministers can represent the United Kingdom at a Council of Ministers meeting. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made that point several times. He is not present now, but to save one of his colleagues from repeating it, I remind the House that, on occasions, albeit not many, that has happened. For example, the previous
  164
  Member for Aberdeen, South, Mr. Robertson, represented the United Kingdom at a Fisheries Council meeting. Such representation is important.
  Article 146 of the Maastricht treaty states:
  "The Council shall consist of a representative of each member state at Ministerial level, authorised to commit the Government of that national state."
  Does the authority exist for a Scottish Minister to represent the United Kingdom? I do not believe that the Scotland Bill gives Scottish Ministers the authority required by article 146, because schedule 5 states that a Scottish Minister may assist a Minister of the Crown in relation to international issues, although foreign affairs and other matters referred to in paragraph 6(1) of that schedule remain reserved.
  Even if there were a power to allow a Scottish Minister to represent the United Kingdom, how could the House of Commons accept that its interests were represented by someone who could not be called to account on the Floor of the House? As several of my colleagues have already said, that arrangement would be an affront to the House.
  Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the White Paper made it clear that if the position that was agreed and argued on behalf of the United Kingdom at a Council of Ministers meeting was one agreed between a Scottish Parliament Minister and a United Kingdom Minister, the responsible UK Minister would have to be answerable to the House for the line agreed by him or her at that Council meeting? A Minister would still be directly accountable to the House. Such a practice already exists. For example, if a Minister from the other place represents the United Kingdom at the Council of Ministers, it is still a Minister of the House of Commons who must answer to this House.
  Dr. Fox: That Minister is still a United Kingdom Minister, but, under the Bill, such a Minister would not be a United Kingdom Minister, answerable to the House as a Minister representing all the United Kingdom. That simply would not be the case. I do not believe that the authority exists to allow for such representation, and it is something which the Government must address.
  At present, Scottish farmers and fishermen—[Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) if he can put a sentence together. It does not surprise me that he is content with monosyllabic sedentary interventions.
  At present, Scottish fishermen and farmers can be directly represented at the Council of Ministers, but that will not continue. Whatever concordats the Secretary of State may put together will not have the same legal force as the current arrangements.
  I had some sympathy with the Minister who opened today's debate. He previously held a position on devolution that differed from his current position.
  Mr. Wilson: That was on different proposals.
  Dr. Fox: That is semantics.
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No—I am very conscious of the time.

  165
  If being in opposition has any benefits at all—they are hard to find—it at least allows us to focus on the wider picture. I am sure the Government will agree that there is clearly something wrong with the running of local government in Scotland, especially in the west of Scotland, as is illustrated by the cases of Paisley, Govan and Monklands—all apparently isolated examples, until we join up the dots. It is obvious that the larger part of the blame for that must lie primarily with individuals—those who conduct their careers in local government—but secondarily with the party to which they belong and those who are responsible for the management of that party.
  Both local government as a whole and central Government must examine their respective roles. I accept our full responsibility in the diminution of the status of local government in our political system. We have seen a great deal of bad local government and, in the words of one of my colleagues, we have on many occasions used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Like many of my colleagues, I have long believed that power should be exercised at the lowest practical level. Yesterday, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that were we able to start again with a clean sheet, that is what we would do and we would allow power to be moved to the level at which it was required in order for functions to be properly fulfilled.
  Mr. Wallace: That is a novel position for a Tory.
  Dr. Fox: It is not, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, with whom I have privately discussed this issue, knows that it is a traditional Conservative position to believe in both diversity in local government and decentralisation of government.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: The hon. Member never said anything like that when the Conservatives were in government.
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman really should listen. Since the 1970s, there has undoubtedly been a creeping centralisation in our relationship with local government, and I regret that trend. Moreover, I believe that the Conservative party in Scotland should return to a more traditional, decentralising position and begin with functional, not geographical, decentralisation. One of the challenges facing the Scottish Parliament will be resisting the temptation to take further powers from local government.
  In this country, politics is a profession in disrepute and nowhere is that more true than in local government.
  Mr. Davidson: Nowhere more than in the Tory party.
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman should ask the voters of Paisley, Govan and Monklands what they think about the calibre of the local government that they have. They will tell him that it is rotten to the core: almost nobody in those areas does not know someone who could not get a
  166
  job because he did not know a member of the Labour council, or could not get a house because he did not know someone on the housing committee—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The House must calm down, and I must point out to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that we are not having a debate about local government.
  Dr. Fox: It was the Minister who referred to local government in his speech.
  There is a need to improve the calibre of those involved in local government in Scotland and to increase accountability and public interest. I believe that it is unjustified for Glasgow and Edinburgh to require so many councillors. We need to conduct a widespread review of the new relationship that will need to be forged between local government and the Scottish Parliament.
  We will question other details in the Bill—the tax proposals, borrowing and lending proposals, summons powers and procedural matters. At this early stage, I make a plea to the Secretary of State on one point, which is the question of privilege. One of the questions that often arise in the House is that of relative and absolute privilege, especially the relative privilege of hon. Members who write to Ministers and the fact that they are not protected in the same way as they are when raising a matter on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider a reform which is overdue in this House and which should be introduced at an early stage in the Scottish Parliament: to give proper privilege to Members of the Scottish Parliament when writing to Scottish Ministers, just as Members of this Parliament should have proper privilege when writing to Ministers of the Crown.
  We shall also table early amendments relating to abortion and embryology, because we believe that not to transfer the relevant powers is illogical. It is morally illogical for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to introduce the death penalty in Scotland, but to be unable to make its own rules on abortion and embryology. Given that health powers are being devolved, why are powers relating to abortion and embryology not being devolved? It is not acceptable to leave something so illogical in the Bill, simply for the convenience of the Labour party.
  Mr. Dalyell: Let us be absolutely clear. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating, or have I misunderstood his remarks, a Scottish human fertilisation and embryology authority? Is that the proposal?
  Dr. Fox: I believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the powers relating to embryological policy making and abortion, because it is illogical to keep them in this House when other powers relating to health policy are being transferred to the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Wilson: I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider what he has just said. Does he really want to introduce a cross-border trade in abortion? If not, will he reconsider his pledge to table amendments on that subject?
  Dr. Fox: First, that question assumes that Ministers believe that there will be a different law in Scotland from that in the rest of the United Kingdom; that goes to the

  167
  core of the proposal. The only reason the Minister puts his question in that way is that he knows there may be tension in the Labour party on that issue.
  Secondly, I thought that the Bill was about trusting the people—the Minister's own words. Surely the Scottish Parliament should be as able as the United Kingdom Parliament to make a decision on health matters. It seems that the people are to be trusted, but not where that is inconvenient for the Labour party.
  We welcome clause 27(7), but would have liked it to be given greater prominence in the Bill, instead of being hidden in the undergrowth. The question of sovereignty was discussed yesterday and, of course, sovereignty rests with the people of Scotland. We have always accepted that if the people of Scotland wanted to leave the Union, they would have a right to do so—but they show no sign of wanting to do so. That is the heart of the matter and the point on which we are in agreement with the Secretary of State.
  In the referendum, Scottish voters expressed their sovereignty as UK citizens. We accept that the Scottish people chose to have devolution within the Union; the Government accept that the Scottish people chose to have devolution within the Union; and the Liberal Democrats accept that the Scottish people chose to have devolution within the Union. That leaves the Scottish National party. The first three parties have an interest in making devolution work, and we accept that that was the democratically expressed wish of the Scottish people. Only the Scottish nationalists have a direct interest in not making it work. If the Bill has a wider benefit, it is in making explicit the nationalist threat to the Union—to the nationalists, devolution is merely a stepping stone to independence. Where the Government genuinely seek to protect the Union we shall support them and where they seek to thwart the nationalists we shall join them with whole-hearted relish.
  I cannot say that I believe in my heart that the Bill is the best way for Scotland to proceed. All the risks that we pointed out during the referendum campaign are still present, but we accept that devolution is how we shall proceed, and we shall do our best to make it work equitably. Fairness and balance for all parts of the United Kingdom are required if the settlement and the Union are to endure. The Bill can be improved and, in a constructive and Unionist spirit, that is what we will join the Government in seeking to achieve.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:I remind the House that Madam Speaker has asked for brief speeches, as there are so many hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) invited me to intervene, but I did not want to prolong the agony, as his was one of the most depressing speeches I have heard from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in this Parliament. He started by saying that he accepted the principle of the decision taken by the Scottish people on 11 September, but spent the rest of his speech making threats that a future Conservative Government would seek to thwart that decision.
  168
  This is certainly the most important piece of legislation that I have seen in nearly 20 years as a Member of the House; I suspect that it is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before Parliament this century. After so many years campaigning through thick and thin for Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom, I am extremely happy to be here to support the Bill today.
  The Bill, together with our proposals for Wales, London and the House of Lords, add up to a bold and constructive package of constitutional reforms. I also welcome today's news that the Scottish Parliament may be able to join a framework to help to achieve a settlement in Northern Ireland—an example of the radical thinking of the Labour Government.
  The Bill addresses a genuine problem. Far too much power has been centralised here in Whitehall, especially during the Thatcher years. It would have been better if the hon. Member for Woodspring had acknowledged the role of the Government he supported in that process. The Labour Government are right to reinvent the principle of accountable government in response to the settled will of the people of Scotland.
  This process is much more than an academic debate about the machinery of government; it affects people's lives. Unaccountable government is inefficient government, and too often it can be oppressive government; there are plenty of examples which range from the outrage of the poll tax, through a long catalogue of neglect and delay and abused power. I shall cite a couple of examples, one small and one large.
  I recall a nasty little statutory instrument that destroyed the traditional livelihoods of small groups of salmon netsmen on Scottish rivers at the behest of landowning interests in Scotland. To his credit, Alick Buchanan-Smith voted with us against that measure, but it was forced through as a result of those vested interests in Scotland.
  At the other extreme—an extreme of neglect—is the extraordinary survival of the feudal system in Scotland. I should declare an interest as an hereditary feudal superior. It is a ludicrous anachronism, which is wide open to serious abuse. Parliament has signally failed to address the problem for many years, but I am sure that it will be high on the agenda of the new Scottish Parliament.
  Opposition Members have been waxing eloquent about the cherished rights of English Members to speak and vote on Scottish affairs. I cannot help wondering whether they are the same hon. Members who have been heard grumbling and moaning about being whipped for late votes on Scottish business in days gone by. I am not entirely convinced by their new-found concern for Scottish affairs. We have devolved Scottish legislation already; it takes up a lot of time for hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. It must make sense to have a devolved Parliament to deal with devolved powers.
  We should spare a thought for our constituents. The government of Scotland is currently conducted on a merry-go-round of trains and planes between Edinburgh and London. If a Scottish Member of Parliament manages to get a constituency case on to the Floor of the House, constituents have to travel from Scotland to sit up in the Gallery, officials have to travel from Edinburgh to advise the Minister for an exchange, which may or may not lead to action in St Andrew's house. It is time to put the Parliament of Scotland in the same place as the people and the Executive of Scotland. That is what the Bill is about.

  169
  As we all know, Scotland already has wide-ranging devolved powers and a substantial devolved budget, but the chain of democratic accountability has been stretched beyond all common sense or credibility. The Bill will establish a devolved Parliament to take control of those devolved powers, and the people know that that makes sense.
  I may be a parliamentary private secretary, but Ministers will concede that I am not by nature a sycophant; when I pay tribute to a Minister, I mean it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues produced an excellent White Paper last year; we took the case to the people in a referendum, and now we have a commendably clearly written Bill, which delivers exactly what the people voted for, including the system of proportional representation.
  I find clause 1(1) particularly appealing in its clarity and brevity. It states:
  "There shall be a Scottish Parliament."
  That is what we shall vote on tonight.
  I even agree with the choice of Holyrood as the site for the Parliament. We shall have a modern Parliament on an accessible site in the historic heart of our capital city. Speaking of history, I cannot resist a reference to Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, my constituency predecessor in the Scottish Parliament in 1707. He warned that the minority of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster would
  "dance around for all eternity in a trap of their own making"
  in the incorporating Union between Scotland and England as proposed at that time. Happily, that eternity will come to an end when the new Scottish Parliament assumes its responsibilities in the year 2000.
  In the intervening 293 years, Scotland has been a jurisdiction without a legislature, a Government without a Parliament, a nation with a clear identity and distinct institutions submerged in that irrational incorporating Union. The Bill will transform the Union into a partnership. It removes those aggravating anomalies, and it will strengthen the successful union with our neighbours in England and Wales.
  We all know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues have a different agenda, but I submit that the Bill is a redundancy notice for the Scottish National party. The Bill fulfils Scotland's legitimate demand for home rule within the United Kingdom, and it will take the constitutional issue off the agenda in Scotland.
  Mr. Swinney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the issuing of redundancy notices to politicians is a matter for the electorate, not for one Labour Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Home Robertson: Indeed, I think that the hon. Gentleman may find that, as the constitutional issue is addressed in the Bill, interest in his party will diminish rapidly. We are already seeing that. The only hope for the Scottish National party is to fill the vacuum on the right of Scottish politics left by the collapse of the Tory party. I shall leave it for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and Mr. Bill Walker to work that one out.
  I offer just one suggestion which could make a good Bill even better; it relates to the important principle of entrenchment. The Scottish Parliament that we are establishing in the Bill will be no ordinary subordinate
  170
  body: it will be not another council, board or quango, but a national Parliament, established by the specific authority of not only this Parliament, but the people in a referendum.
  The referendum of 11 September 1997 was not just an opinion poll, but a serious historic decision made with a turnout of more than 60 per cent. of the electorate of Scotland, on an old register on a rainy day. There was a clear result: 74 per cent. of our people said yes to a Parliament; 63 per cent. of our people said yes to tax-varying powers.
  One of the main arguments for holding a referendum was to secure an entrenched status for the new Parliament. I therefore submit that there should be a specific reference to that endorsement by referendum either in the Bill's long title or in clause 1, in order to cite the authority of the people for the establishment of their Parliament and to make the implicit point that the legislation should not be repealed in future without a similar direct democratic mandate from the people of Scotland.
  That is a very important point, and I hope that the Government will consider an appropriate amendment to cite the authority of the referendum and so entrench the status of our Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: No Parliament can bind its successors. If what the hon. Gentleman has suggested is inserted in the clause, will he also insert a statement that 44 per cent. of the people of Scotland voted for the Parliament, and 38 per cent. voted for the tax-varying powers? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the people of Scotland—those are the figures.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. Of course no Parliament can bind its successors; I am simply saying that there should be a reference on the face of the Bill to the fact that it is being enacted on the strength of a referendum. That would make the implicit point that such legislation should not be repealed except on the strength of a similar referendum.
  Mr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: I must make progress, because Madam Speaker has asked us to be brief.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) tried to chide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject of who was going to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament. I have bad news for my right hon. Friend, and it is probably just as well that he is not in the Chamber: I intend to seek the nomination of the East Lothian constituency Labour party. I believe that the Scottish Parliament can make a very real difference for our people. After 20 years of campaigning to get that Scottish Parliament, I make no bones about it: I want to be there.
  In conclusion, I cite one area where the new Scottish Parliament can make a fresh start: rural affairs and land in Scotland.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: No. Madam Speaker has asked us to be brief and I want to be fair to other hon. Members.

  171
  Vast areas of Scotland are very sparsely populated—not only the highlands and islands, but the north-east, the borders, Dumfries and Galloway and other parts of rural Scotland. With only 5 million people in a land of 30,000 sq miles, our population density is nearly six times less than that of England, so the new Parliament is bound to pay greater attention to rural affairs than the Westminster Parliament has done.
  I mentioned the anachronism of the Scottish feudal system. I could talk about land ownership, land use, rural development, employment, transport services and ways of making European Union policies work far better in rural Scotland. After centuries of neglect and abuse, and the cynical manipulation of Government policies by powerful vested interests in recent years, rural Scotland will have strong representation in the new Parliament. The Parliament will be able to apply new policies, and will be able to target resources. It will be able to legislate for change in rural Scotland—which is just one of many reasons why I hope to be a Member of the new Scottish Parliament.
  Words cannot adequately express my support for the Bill, but I must say that tonight's Division will be one of the happiest experiences of my career in this House of Commons.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I very much welcome the opportunity to support the Second Reading of the Bill, which I believe marks the start of a fundamental reform of the United Kingdom constitution—an idea which terrifies the Tories but which we whole-heartedly welcome. It has implications for England, which England must address.
  I shall briefly take issue with one or two markedly inconsistent things that have been said by members of the Conservative Front-Bench team.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said:
  "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"—
  but we have heard nothing constructive from the Conservatives as to how that should be brought about—just carping, criticism and complaints. [Interruption.] I accept that some legitimate questions have been asked, but nothing positive or constructive has been said. In those circumstances, it is difficult to understand why anyone in Scotland would vote for a Conservative candidate for the Parliament, to which the Conservatives have no contribution to make.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: What could be more constructive than the suggestion that the Parliament's funding should be secure and protected?
  Mr. Bruce: I do not have a problem with that, and I have said that a number of comments were made, but the Conservatives have said nothing about how they would set about reforming the United Kingdom and the government of Scotland in a way that meets the aspirations of the Scottish people. Most of their comments were complaints about the new Parliament.
  172
  Indeed, the right hon. Member for Devizes said, when referring to our "Gladstonian … euphoria", that the Liberal Democrats
  "have had very little constructive comment to offer to the debate."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 35.]
  Has he any idea what went on in the Scottish Constitutional Convention over eight years? If the Conservatives had been there, they might have a legitimate argument to suggest that they had helped to shape the operation.
  It was always open to the Conservatives, knowing that they were opposed to the idea of a Scottish Parliament, to participate in the constitutional convention and express their reservations. They took no part in it, because they never believed that this day would come, and it is to their eternal shame that they failed to recognise their responsibilities.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Are you going to stand?
  Mr. Bruce: I am coming to that.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes said that he wanted
  "a full reassertion of the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 42.]
  I have news for him. If he does not understand what is going on in the next few years, he will start to realise that the days of the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament are, thankfully, numbered, and that sovereignty will be returned to where it came from—to the people, not to the arrogation of people elected in a representative Parliament. Ultimately, the people should decide. The people of Scotland have made a clear decision on what they want, and it is our job to pass the legislation.
  I strongly believe that the practicalities of the birth of this home rule Parliament will concentrate the minds of people in Scotland on two complementary benefits. First, they will at last have real influence over and control of the decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of all those people living in Scotland, from wherever they come, as long as they have the rights of residence and participation. Secondly, the Parliament will focus the attention of people living in Scotland on the benefits of participating in the United Kingdom rather than opting out.
  This is an evolutionary process. I do not believe that the Bill sets in stone the final, ultimate constitutional settlement for Scotland, but I firmly believe that it sets the foundations of what will inevitably become a federal settlement for the United Kingdom, even if the final formula is not wholly foreseen.
  I believe that people in Scotland will realise that it is in Scotland's interest for us to share in funding and participation in matters such as social security, defence, foreign affairs, trade and economic policy development, instead of trying to do those things on our own. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members suppose that taking a close interest in social security, defence, foreign affairs, trade and economic policy is a minor detail, which should not occupy much of our time.
  Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster will do two vital things. First, they will protect the interests of Scotland so far as the Parliament at Westminster is legislating for Scotland, ensuring that Scotland's voice continues to be effectively heard. Secondly, in partnership

  173
  with all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, they will share in the development of policies on those issues in which we all have a common interest. In both those roles, it seems to me a very worthwhile job to do.
  Mr. Jenkin: Part-time.
  Mr. Bruce: I do not believe that it is part-time at all. Many Members of Parliament have managed to be part-time under the existing arrangements. Ultimately, how hard anyone works and how effective they are is a matter for their judgment and the verdict of their constituents.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: No; I will not give way on that. I simply say that I would find the decision whether to be in the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster Parliament very difficult. I have believed all my life in the case for a Scottish Parliament, and I want to see it operating effectively, but I believe that there is a very important job for Scottish Members of Parliament to do in Westminster, and I therefore firmly intend to continue to represent my constituents in the House as long as they will elect me.
  Mr. James Gray: Two jobs.
  Mr. Bruce: I do not understand the sedentary jibe that it is two jobs.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Bruce: I will not give way. I shall continue to do the job that I have been elected to do for the past 14 years, and which the Conservative candidate has totally failed to—
  Mr. Jenkin: Touchy.
  Mr. Bruce: I am not in the least bit touchy.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Bruce: I will not give way.
  When some Conservative Members talk about the tensions and divisions that arise, as they see it, from the introduction of the Bill, they seem to fail to understand how much tension and division exists under the present system, creating the need for the Bill.
  A dynamic democracy must change. If it was always run by Conservatives, it never would, by definition. Conservatives must interact with the forces of change from time to time, and now they are finding that they must react to the momentum for change.
  I sometimes wonder, listening to them, whether Tories take the view that the only way to resolve disputes is to ensure that there is only one source of power. Actually, one must put in place mechanisms to recognise and resolve friction. Much of what is in the Bill does just that.
  Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair that a Scottish Member of Parliament should be able to vote on English legislation when the opposite is not true?
  Mr. Bruce: Yes, it is fair. We were subjected to English Members voting on Scottish legislation for the
  174
  past 18 years. We in my party are unashamed federalists. We do not think that the Bill delivers federalism, but we support it because we see it as a building block which can lead to federalism. These issues can ultimately be resolved; in the meantime, it would help if English Conservatives had a clearer idea of how England could be better governed, and abandoned their view that Scotland should not control its own affairs. More constructive thinking on the issue is called for—perhaps the passage of the Bill will force Conservative Members to do some.
  One Conservative point that was constructive concerned the financial arrangements for the Scottish Parliament. I agreed with the right hon. Member for Devizes, who said yesterday that he would like the future financial arrangements for Scotland and the rest of the UK to be set out in the Bill. I know that the Government have made their position clear, but it would be nice to see it in the legislation.
  The block grant and the formula system have been in place since before the Barnett formula—effectively since 1947, if not before. I find it offensive—wherever the idea comes from—that a formula found acceptable when administered by devolved administration subject to the Secretary of State should become unacceptable when administered by an elected Parliament operating inside the same system. Now is not the moment to try to change that system. I believe that the current funding arrangements and the continued operation of the Barnett formula are essential to the success of the project and to ensuring that it goes ahead without unnecessary friction.
  I was a member of the Treasury Select Committee which reported before Christmas. I would not have minded what happened so much if the Committee had taken any relevant evidence: but it did not. Some questions were asked about the Barnett formula, but halfway through the evidence it suddenly dawned on members of the Committee that they were not interested in the Barnett formula. Rather, they were interested in the overall funding for Scotland—about which they asked nobody any questions. That did not stop them voting 10 to one in favour of recommending something which they had not even investigated.
  It was a shoddy piece of work for a Select Committee of this House. I have served on a number of Select Committees, but I have never before participated in a piece of work that was so badly researched and so unjustified in its conclusions. I hope that the Government will reject it out of hand.
  Yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) touched on the business case. I welcome the growing number of Scottish businesses that are beginning to recognise that a Scottish Parliament is not a threat, and might even be a real opportunity. Standard Life and the Bank of Scotland have offered actively to encourage their employees to take part in elections to the Scottish Parliament, and to hold their jobs open for them in the event that they are not successful. That should be of some comfort to Conservative party candidates.
  I have had a number of informal discussions, too, with business people, who are beginning to see how these developments in Scottish administration could be positively helpful. The suggestion was put to me that, because of the importance of the oil and gas industry to Scotland, it would be valuable to have a Minister in the Scottish Parliament with responsibility for oil and gas.

  175
  For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I make it clear that I fully accept that licensing and taxation policy in respect of oil and gas remains at Westminster; but the development of the industry and its export opportunities and jobs are all crucial to Scotland. As such, they are of legitimate interest to the Scottish Parliament, and a Minister with such responsibilities could make a useful contribution to developing the industry.
  I end on a note of concern about the north-east, although it is a concern shared to a lesser extent by other parts of the country. We should not be pushing ahead with local government changes, in the form of council numbers, at a time when we are about to devolve power and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. I should prefer such changes to be left until after the Parliament is elected.
  Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) can fathom why the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland is arguing that Aberdeenshire's complement of councillors should be increased from 47 to 68. It is a complete waste of money, and utterly unnecessary. No one anywhere in Aberdeenshire is in favour of the change, yet the Boundary Commission is insisting that it go ahead in time for the next local government elections. I hope that the Minister can do something to stop the change going ahead, or at least that he will defer it until the Scottish Parliament has been set up.
  In due course, the local government boundaries may need to be reviewed.
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): Write me a letter.
  Mr. Bruce: I appreciate the Minister's comment.
  If Aberdeenshire's boundaries were changed to conform to those of the old Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire, and Moray were extended to become Moray and Banffshire, re-creating the two as a joint authority, that would prove a popular move, improving the administrative efficiency of both areas without fundamentally altering their political mix.
  The funding settlement for the new Parliament gets us off to a good working start, but over time we may need to revisit the issue. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out yesterday that we are talking about tax-varying powers of only 3 per cent. of the total spending power of the Parliament. Over time, people will argue that the Scottish Parliament should have access to more of its own resources through some form of assigned revenues or the collection of taxes within Scotland. In 10 years' time, such a rethink may prove welcome, once people see how the system has settled down.
  The block grant formula and the 3 per cent. tax-varying power will not last for ever, although they are a good start. Without them, there would be too many uncertainties; and it would have been much harder to persuade people to vote for anything more complicated. Of course, wide consultation will be called for, but the Minister will recognise, I hope, that such a review will encourage the Scottish Parliament to be imaginative and enterprising. It will have the incentive to control its own taxes and to be accountable to the people it serves.
  176
  We should like the same principle to be applied to local government generally, which has been heading in the wrong direction—as even the Conservatives acknowledge now. To include in the Bill security for existing funding and a recognition of the need for a fundamental review in 10 years' time would be most desirable.
  The Bill is an historic development which will have far-reaching implications for the whole United Kingdom. I urge Conservative Members who have thus far been so resistant to it to embrace the programme for change and to start to think constructively about how the English question can be resolved—not at the expense of Scotland, but to the benefit of the whole United Kingdom.
  5.18 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: Every time I have spoken in the Chamber on the Scottish devolution I have used the word "historic". To avoid being too repetitive, I thought I would turn to the thesaurus for new words. I found the following: celebrated, acclaimed, legendary, great, illustrious and glorious.
  On this glorious day, I am delighted to take part in this legendary debate on an acclaimed Bill introduced by my celebrated, great and illustrious right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps that is a bit over the top, contrasting as it does with the traditional understatement of the Scots. When they think something is wonderful they say, "It's no bad"; they also think that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office team have done "a pretty good job".
  I feel that I have been practising the arguments for this debate almost all my life—for years and years. It is therefore unlikely that I shall say something new, but it is worth reiterating the importance of the Bill and of the Scottish Parliament.
  The Scottish Parliament will address the democratic deficit in Scotland, which has led to so many bad decisions being made over the past 18 years. One feels that Scottish legislation has always been tacked on at the end of English and Welsh legislation, and never given its own priority. There never seems to be parliamentary time for legislation that is peculiar to Scotland. That is why we have a feudal system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred.
  I now know who to blame, because I have been a victim of the Scottish feudal system over the past few months. I bought a new house in my constituency. Until we get houses for life, and houses that people in wheelchairs can get into, I must build a ramp. I applied to the local council for planning permission, and six weeks later a letter dropped through my door, stating that planning permission had been granted, but along with it dropped another letter reminding me that I have a feu superior, and that no alterations can be made to the outside of the house without the permission of the feu superior. Consequently, I have waited another six weeks for further permission to build the ramp. I am still not in my house, and I am still waiting. Perhaps at Easter I will be able to invite hon. Members to the house-warming.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Must we bring our own bottle?
  Miss Begg: I am an Aberdonian—of course you can bring your own bottle.

  177
  I am sure that Scottish land reform will be tackled early in the new Scottish Parliament, as it is long overdue and has never been able to be dealt with in the House. Scotland is different; some may say that it is peculiar. We need the Parliament to deal with matters that are peculiarly Scottish.
  The Scottish Parliament will give Scots a new confidence in their ability—not a confidence that will result in the narrow nationalism of the "fa's like us, nae many and they're a' deid" mentality, but a confidence that will come from having control over our domestic affairs, although we will still be part of Britain and Europe.
  It is one of the strengths of the Scottish psyche that we can happily be Scottish, British and European all at the same time.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: And Irish?
  Miss Begg: Yes. That is why the Scottish people have voted for devolution, not independence, and why we Scots do not display the antipathy to the European Union that is displayed by Opposition Members.
  However, I have a word of caution. We have been waiting such a long time for a Scottish Parliament that there may be a danger of over-expectation. I have a great fear that the Scottish Parliament may fail to live up to what each person wants. Let us be clear that it will not be a panacea. It may come as a surprise to some, but a Scottish Parliament will not help Scotland win the World cup. I am sorry about that, but it will not. Even a Scottish Parliament will not be able to stop it raining in Aberdeen. I am sorry to disillusion the SNP, but the Scottish Parliament will definitely not lead to independence; it will, however, allow decisions to be taken in Scotland on issues that are distinctly Scottish—decisions on education, health, local government, and law and order.
  Before I got on the plane yesterday morning, I was listening to Radio Scotland. One hears Radio Scotland only in Scotland, never down here, which is strange. It was interesting to hear an explanation of how the Scotland Bill will progress through the Houses of Parliament. The fact that the Westminster legislative process had to be explained on national radio speaks volumes. That is because it is a great mystery to most people. Indeed, it is a mystery to many hon. Members as well. It is to be hoped that there will not be such alienation from the political process in the new Scottish Parliament.
  There will be new structures for the new Parliament, and an end to the archaic procedures of the House. I often think that those procedures were designed to keep the population at arm's length, and to persuade us that there is something mystical and complicated about the exercise of power.
  The Scottish Parliament will be open, accessible, accountable and—something that is quite alien in Westminster—it will be consensual. It will be new politics. Those who do not believe that politicians in Scotland can behave in the grown-up, civilised manner that is required to come to decisions through a process of consensus should look at how the constitutional convention operated. There is the potential for maturity in Scottish politics.
  It is right that the new Parliament will decide on its own structures. That is not a job for Westminster, as it would be likely to create a Parliament in its own image, which would be a disaster. If the Parliament is to be truly accessible, it needs to be open and understandable to all.
  178
  The Parliament must also be physically accessible, which is why I welcome the decision to site the Parliament at Holyrood in a new, purpose-built building. Anyone who believes that Calton Hill was the ideal site, perched on top of a hill in a converted old building, has never lived life from a wheelchair. Any adaptations would always have been a compromise and never satisfactory—one just has to look at this place.
  Another reason why the new Parliament will have greater accessibility is that it will be elected by proportional representation. There is no doubt that the result of the referendum in Aberdeen was so decisive because the people of the north-east know that they will have a strong voice in the new Parliament.
  There is no doubt that the electoral system will prove to be the saviour of the Scottish Tories. I suppose that it is too much to expect a thank you from Opposition Members to the Labour Government, but we can always live in hope.
  Today is not the day to be churlish. I welcome the recent conversion of the Opposition, who realise that the Scottish Parliament is the settled will of the Scottish people. The Opposition have said that they want to make the Parliament work, and I am very glad about that. The Tories claim that they want to make it work. The Liberal Democrats claim that they want to make it work. Even the members of the SNP claim that they want to make it work, and I hope I can believe them. Obviously the Labour Government and the Labour party want it to work. If those claims are true, the Scottish Parliament proposed by the Bill will be a great success and will allow the Scottish people, after 300 years, to claim their right to home rule.
  5.26 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: We have all been delighted to hear the optimism expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). I hope that it will prove to be wholly justified, and that those of my opinion will prove to be wholly wrong.
  I would counsel the hon. Lady against overoptimism. I had the pleasure of being a Scottish Member of Parliament and then coming down to England, which was quite a transfer. I am surprised that the feudal system concerns her. My experience in Scotland was that that seemed to cost very little, and one used to deal with respectable lawyers, whereas in England one must pay a great deal more and deal with people who are not respectable at all.
  It is outrageous for Scottish Members to argue that devolution will bring more democracy direct to the people, while the same Members consistently argue for more power to go to the European Union, where people's rights do not exist and where democracy is effectively dead.
  I was horrified to hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches the astonishing interpretation of the views of the Treasury Select Committee, of which I am a member. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) seems to be interested in parish pump, rather than accuracy. If hon. Members study the Committee's report, they will see that no conclusions were arrived at and that the Committee called for further investigation of what it considered an interesting idea.

  179
  In light of the referendum result and the massive Government majority, it might appear that there is little point in my taking part in this debate. However, I believe that there is a little merit in people such as me, who have opposed the devolution proposals presented by both Conservative and Labour Governments, making suggestions, just in case devolution turns out to be a great disaster.
  Some people may have forgotten—people of your age, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and others who were not around when the Conservatives presented their proposals—that those devolution plans were very similar to Labour's. The impression that I gain from speaking to colleagues is that among the true believers in devolution, there was hardly anyone who believed in it at all. They thought that the way to cope with the rising threat of the SNP was to offer devolution as a kind of halfway house.
  Strange to say, as the House will well recall, when we, the then Conservative Government, were promoting devolution, instead of the SNP fading away, it enjoyed a wonderful boost. From 1979, I think we had 11 SNP Members, who were all of great ability and enthusiasm. Basically, they argued the case for an independent Scotland. Unfortunately, I have met quite a few Labour Members who do not appear to be quite so enthusiastic about devolution when one speaks to them privately as they do publicly.
  Those who think that devolution will knock the SNP on the head are living in cloud cuckoo land. Those who think that the move to devolution will lead to the collapse of the SNP will be subject to a brutal shock. I think that this time round, like last time, instead of the SNP collapsing, it will enjoy a mighty boost. I think that the SNP Members who are present will agree with me and will be content to see what happens.
  What is my objection to the Government's proposals? First, it is obvious that the proposed Parliament will be one of utter frustration. We know that it will have the power to talk about everything, but it will have extremely limited powers. One example is fishing, where the powers of the new Parliament and those of the Westminster Parliament will be very limited. The power of discussion without the power to act will lead to a great deal of frustration, and that frustration will become infinitely worse if different parties are in charge of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.
  Secondly, it should be appreciated, especially by the enthusiasts such as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that the proposed Parliament will be one of cuts in services. There is a great danger in that some Members think that the new devolved Parliament will be able to bring better services and organisations to Scotland. The costs will be substantial and will have to come from the block grant. The Government's estimate is that the cost will be about £5 per head in Scotland, which is, let us say, £20 a family. Sadly, as we know from the present Government and previous Governments, such estimates always prove to be wildly inaccurate.
  If we assume that nothing else will happen, there will still be a reduction in services for the average Scottish family to the tune of £20, which is a considerable sum. I suggest that if we in this place were suddenly put in
  180
  charge of Edinburgh and of administering the affairs of Scotland, a cut of £20 per family would not prove particularly agreeable.
  Thirdly, we are talking about a Parliament of constitutional mess. We in this place cannot appreciate what it must be like to have a Parliament in which about half the Members have constituencies to look after, committees to which they must be answerable and constituency correspondence to which they must attend, along with meeting representatives of the boroughs in which they operate, while another group of Members—albeit, not quite so large—sitting in the same Parliament have no such responsibilities. Those Members without constituency responsibilities will simply be a party of hacks, people who have been presented by their parties and put on a list.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman's rather pessimistic view of what the list Members would have to do is not necessarily borne out by the facts, as I understand them, across Europe. List Members often end up with more work than constituency Members because electors who do not agree with their elected constituency Members turn to list Members. I suspect that list Members will end up with larger postbags than constituency Members. We may find that list Members have much more work than the hon. Gentleman thinks.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is possible that that will be the case. I hope that the people of Scotland will know who the list Members are and to whom they should write. I think that experience will prove that if someone is not directly elected the average person will not be entirely sure who they are. The people can be sure only that list Members will probably have the privilege of being invited to lunch by the CBI—something that will, of course, achieve a great deal.
  We should not disregard the fact that the proposed Parliament will be a Parliament of strife. Some of those who have spoken in the debate have perhaps not read some of the Bill's provisions, which are quite frightening. For example, it seems that clauses 53 and 54 would give unlimited power to the Secretary of State. They seem to mean that, irrespective of a decision that the Parliament has taken or decided not to take, the Secretary of State can instruct it to cancel legislation that has been agreed to—in other words, to cancel the action or to take other action.
  If we in this place were sitting in the Assembly and someone outside had the power to tell us that what we had done was wrong and should be cancelled, or that what we had not done should be done, there would be a great deal of confusion and stress. Similarly, we should not disregard the capping powers that will be given to the Secretary of State, whereby if, in his opinion, the Parliament is spending too much money or is charging ratepayers too much, which is a form of indirect taxation, he can basically cut its grant. That would create constitutional privilege.
  I note that the Minister is shaking his head, and that surprises me. I have set out my understanding of what I have read. It would appear that the capping powers that would be given to the Secretary of State would enable him to reduce the grant. Perhaps I have misread the relevant provisions, but I assure the Minister that I read them rather carefully.

  181
  We are setting up a rather ridiculous structure with some Members representing constituencies and some not. It is all very well to be critical, but what should be done instead? I, like others, think that the whole process will end in an horrendous nightmare. Is there another approach? Those who come from Scotland, as I do, are well aware that Scotland is a nation and not a region and that there has sometimes been great frustration in Scotland when legislation has been applied there that was considered unacceptable. The same objective could almost certainly be realised by giving independent powers to, for example, the Scottish Grand Committee, consisting solely of Scottish Members, so long as the same power was given to English Members in respect of legislation relevant to us. There lies one of the great fears, and one which should not be disregarded.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the concern that would be felt in the north-east given the total domination of the central belt and of the Labour party in any policy making in Scotland, with no restraint at all on the powers of the Scottish Executive? Unless the House were reformed with the introduction of proportional representation, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that his solution would be more frightening than the current system or the proposed Bill?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of the fear in Southend-on-Sea, where I now reside, about the central powers of Chelmsford, which is about 10 miles away. That is one of the reasons why in Southend we have a unitary authority, which was established on 1 May.
  Outlying areas should remember that in terms, for example, of unemployment and prosperity, they do quite well. I remind my hon. Friends from elsewhere that the level of unemployment in my constituency is 10.3 per cent. Against that background, it is rather strange to hear others say that they are neglected. There are piles of grants and a great deal of prosperity along with far lower unemployment levels.
  Even within Essex there is the fear of centralisation, but if the problem in Scotland is effectively to be resolved without creating appalling constitutional difficulties, such as the West Lothian question, we should consider seriously proceeding through this Parliament.
  The cost of the Scottish Assembly will be substantial and the democratic situation will be extremely dangerous. As proposed, we can expect from the Assembly, or the Scottish Parliament, only a curtailment of services. There will be battles within the United Kingdom and opportunities will be stoked up for the SNP.
  I spent most of my life in Scotland and I believe that people will have to make up their minds. There is a good, logical and strong case for an independent Scotland. I do not agree with that case and I would campaign and argue against it, but I accept that there is a logical case that must be argued. There is an appalling danger for Scotland, England and the United Kingdom if we try to find a halfway house. That approach will create many more politicians, all of whom will want researchers, secretaries and visits. Such a system will generate a great deal of cost, and the people of Scotland will have to pay.
  We are creating a constitutional nightmare, but one which will not be obvious immediately so long as the Labour party dominates both Parliaments. There will be
  182
  a real nightmare, however, if the constitutional situation changes. I hope that my party will make it clear that in the event of there being a Conservative Government at some time in the future, the issue will be faced and every effort made to resolve it. The way to resolve what is a real problem is not through the Bill, which I believe will create additional cost, result in a reduction of services and cause a great deal of strife within the United Kingdom.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was like a repetition of an old record from the 1970s, but it was no golden oldie. It sounded as though the needle had been stuck since the 1970s, and as though he was stuck in a time warp.
  In the 1970s, the hon. Gentleman represented Glasgow, Cathcart. He and I are two of the few hon. Members present this evening who were also present on Second Reading of the previous Scotland Bill, which proposed to set up a Scottish Parliament, or Assembly as it was called. The man who piloted that Bill through Parliament was the late John Smith, and here we are, more than 20 years later, trying to finish what John described as unfinished business and the settled will of the Scottish people.
  After the general election in 1979, one of the first things that the Tory Government did was to repeal the Scotland Act 1978. One of those who spoke in favour of repeal—indeed, who voted in favour of it—was the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has just left the Chamber, and who opened the debate for the Opposition yesterday. He spoke and voted for the repeal of the Scotland Act 1978, despite the fact that the majority of the people who voted in the 1979 referendum voted in favour of a Scottish Parliament, or Assembly, as it was called—so much for his respect for the wishes of the people of Scotland. No wonder he was subsequently kicked out of his Edinburgh, South seat. Just as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East was kicked out of Glasgow, Cathcart, so the right hon. Member for Devizes was kicked out of Edinburgh, South—just as he had previously been kicked out of Berwickshire and East Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman had to seek refuge in the salubrious climes of Devizes, where he proceeds to lecture the people of Scotland on what is best for us. What a cheek. What an effrontery. It is rather like Edward II trying to lecture Robert the Bruce on the best military tactics to be used at Bannockburn.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) referred to the unique democratic deficit that has existed in Scotland for many years because of the absence of a Scottish Parliament. Scotland is constitutionally unique in that we are the only country with our own laws and legal system but no Parliament of our own to pass laws. As a result, this place has to act as a legislature for Scots law as well as the laws that apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
  During the 18 years of Tory misrule, the Tory Government cynically exploited that democratic deficit by foisting on the people of Scotland many laws and decisions that were quite contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland and the majority of their elected representatives. We can think of many examples: the misuse of public funds for private

  183
  fee-paying schools and the misuse of taxpayers' money—more than £30 million—for a private hospital in Clydebank while people were queuing up to get into national health service hospitals. Probably the worst example of all was the deliberate use of the people of Scotland as guinea pigs for the iniquitous poll tax.
  During those 18 years of Tory misrule, an increasing number of people came to realise that if there had been a Scottish Parliament, those abuses of power would have been impossible. We had a much bigger majority in the referendum last year than in the 1979 referendum partly because many of the people who were sceptics way back in 1979, and others who voted no in the 1979 referendum, had come to the conclusion—after 18 years of Thatcherism and 18 years of Tory misrule—that a Scottish Parliament would be able to give some protection to the people of Scotland.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland and his ministerial colleagues on their excellent job in getting the message across to the people of Scotland during the referendum campaign and on helping to bring about that magnificent victory in the referendum last year. I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book at the earliest opportunity so that we can have the first elections to the Scottish Parliament on 6 May next year.
  I realise that not everyone will be satisfied with the contents of the Bill, but it proposes an enormous transfer of power to the people of Scotland. I would be one of the first to say that it is not absolutely perfect in every respect, but I do not see the Bill's contents as something that has been handed down from high on tablets of stone. I see the relationship between the future Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament not as being static but as being dynamic. The dynamics, in time, may well lead to more power being given to the Scottish Parliament if that is the democratic wish of the people of Scotland.
  The sovereignty of the people of Scotland is surely at the heart of the matter. Those of us who are members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention signed the Claim of Right acknowledging the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government that is best suited to their needs.
  The Bill will certainly eradicate the democratic deficit to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South referred. It will give the people of Scotland the first democratic Parliament in Scotland's history. We all know that there was a Scottish Parliament before 1707, but the Scottish Parliament that existed then could hardly be described as democratic or truly representative of the people of Scotland as a whole. If it had been, its members might not have been foolish or corrupt enough to vote for its abolition. This is not a case of turning back the clock or restoring something that used to exist three centuries ago; it is a case of establishing, for the first time, a modern, democratic Parliament for the people of Scotland, elected by the people of Scotland and accountable to the people of Scotland. It will be a new Parliament for a new millennium—a Parliament that will help to give a fresh start and build a better future for the people of Scotland.
  5.48 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened yesterday to some fascinating interventions, particularly
  184
  from the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was echoed by several of his colleagues, all gravely concerned about the apparent risk of Scotland becoming increasingly marginalised after devolution. Listening to their expressions of concern, I thought, "Excuse me, where have they been for the past 20 years?" It is precisely because Scotland was marginalised by the previous Government that the desire for more control over the affairs of Scotland has not only not gone away but increased to the extent shown in the stunning referendum result on 11 September.
  I never fail to be amazed that, in their oh so grudging acceptance of the scheme, after all their attempts to defeat it and their continued half-hearted approach to it, not once have I heard any Conservatives accept that maybe—just maybe—the Scottish people felt as they did at least in part because of the atrocious attitude to Scotland exhibited by the previous Government. A little humility might be in order, but we have come to accept that we shall never hear any humility from the Conservatives.
  It seems that having once attended a Burns supper, or something similar, is regarded by the Tories as sufficient qualification to opine on the future of Scotland. I am getting fed up with listening to the genealogical history of Conservative Back Benchers who feel the need to display their genetic credentials when they speak.
  I have personal experience of living outside Scotland—indeed, my colleagues are fed up with listening to me talk about those experiences. I wanted to be part of the debate in Scotland. There was an easy way to resolve that. I was taken away at the age of eight and came back in my mid-20s with the express purpose of becoming politically active. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) talked about having practised all her life for today. I do not regard today as the end point of what I have been practising for, but it is a stage post on a journey that started 12,000 miles away. I suggest to those who are so keen on their Scottish ancestry and so desirous of having their voices heard that they take the same not very difficult step. They should go to Scotland and help their colleagues in the Scottish Conservative party. They might find that their perspective changes substantially. I might be criticised for inviting an increase in the number of Conservative activists in Scotland, but let us be fair—there are so few of them and at 12 per cent. in the opinion polls a handful more transferring to north of the border will probably not make much difference.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I certainly have no Scottish credentials to rehearse before the House. Does the hon. Lady accept that we are not pontificating about the affairs of Scotland? The Bill has profound implications for my constituents in England.
  Ms Cunningham: I have been listening to Tories pontificating about Scotland for years and years. Many of those interventions have been made in this Chamber—including several last night.
  As a nationalist, I regard the devolution scheme as half a loaf. I fully expect that when the people of Scotland have devoured this half a loaf, they will look around them for a few more crumbs. That is a matter for them. As democrats, we all accept that. We shall continue to urge them to look for an increase in the power of the Scottish Parliament. I have heard tonight that the Liberal

  185
  Democrats are expecting that. I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) used the word, "evolutionary".
  Mr. John McAllion: Revolutionary.
  Ms Cunningham: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I agree on many issues, of which that may be one, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Gordon would agree with such an approach.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was all over the place this evening. While adopting the typical grudging attitude of the Conservatives, he went on to argue for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, with the transfer of responsibility for abortion and embryology. At one point during his speech, I saw the spectre of a Labour-Tory coalition as he canvassed the possibility of a Unionist cabal to ensure that there were no changes to the scheme in future.
  Hon. Members would not expect me, as a nationalist, to say that the scheme went far enough. However, our comments so far have made it clear that we are not going to attempt to change the Bill to an independence measure, much as I might wish to. We have focused on three specific areas in the devolutionary spirit—a difficult spirit for me to get into, but we try—in an attempt to amend the Bill for the better. I shall deal with broadcasting.
  In the convention scheme, broadcasting was listed as a proposed devolved power. Until the publication of the White Paper, there was a widespread understanding that that would remain the case. However, the White Paper made it clear that, regardless of the understanding, broadcasting would remain a reserved power.
  To be fair, the White Paper made some reference to the importance of broadcasting. Paragraph 2.11 referred to cross-border public bodies that would
  "continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland, and therefore likely to be of interest to the Scottish Parliament."
  It allowed that the Parliament would be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence to its Committees from such bodies. The short list of examples given—I did not expect it to be exhaustive—included
  "broadcasting and telecommunication organisations such as the BBC and the Independent Television Commission".
  That did not represent the devolution of power over broadcasting, but it allowed for the prospect of scrutiny of broadcasting by the Scottish Parliament and the expectation that people from the BBC and the ITC would be accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
  Last night there was a bit of a flurry on the Government Benches when my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) remarked that there had been a retreat from the commitment in the White Paper. Labour Members began waving their White Papers excitedly and pointing to them. The Secretary of State went into little private confabs in an attempt to understand what was being implied.
  Clauses 83, 84 and 85 deal with cross-border public bodies, which are defined as those having
  "functions exercisable in or as regards Scotland which do not relate to reserved matters."
  That is a little different from the definition outlined in the White Paper, but it might not necessarily have caused enormous alarm. There are good reasons for not producing a list of those cross-border public bodies in the Bill.
  186
  However, there is a detailed list in annexe E of the guidance notes, which were helpfully published alongside the Bill. As I flicked through the notes, which carefully outline the very few changes from the promises in the White Paper, I wondered whether I should be a tad cynical about our attention being directed to such specific areas. Perhaps there might be aspects that were overlooked. That is indeed the case. Annexe E gives a comprehensive list of 41 cross-border bodies under a variety of headings, including agriculture and fisheries, sport and the arts, the environment, home affairs and health. The list covers three pages. Lo and behold! What is missing? The BBC, the ITC and the other telecommunications organisations are missing.
  Perhaps Labour Members, including Ministers, were totally unaware of that omission—and, perhaps, I came up the Clyde on a banana boat. Somewhere between the publication of the White Paper and of the Bill, the BBC and the ITC have mysteriously disappeared from any definition of a cross-border public body. As far as I can gather, they are therefore not even subject to the minimal scrutiny originally suggested. So, the next time that the BBC in London decides to repeat the infamous "Panorama" experience, the Scottish Parliament will not be able to call it to account.
  I give the Minister every opportunity to state on the Floor of the House that the omission is wholly accidental and will be rectified in Committee. I wonder whether he will leap to his feet to give us that reassurance. I see that he does not. In those circumstances, we shall table amendments to ensure that both organisations will be deemed cross-border public bodies—just in case, somewhere along the way, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport puts his nose in the matter or broadcasters quietly indicate that the last thing that they want is any parliamentary scrutiny by the troublesome jocks.
  Mr. Desmond Browne rose—
  Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is leaping to his feet to tell me that, despite everything, the BBC and the ITC will be answerable to the Scottish Parliament. I would like him to say how.
  Mr. Browne: Is not the hon. Lady barking up the wrong clause? Are not the powers in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper reflected in clause 23, which deals with the power to call witnesses and documents?
  Ms Cunningham: There is no specification anywhere that the BBC or the ITC will be answerable to the Scottish Parliament. It does not matter what clause one looks at. Nowhere in the guidance notes is there any indication that those bodies will be answerable.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Ms Cunningham: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who did not make his point.
  We are debating a scheme in which responsibility for the arts, education and Gaelic are devolved—yet responsibility for broadcasting is not. That means that all

  187
  aspects of cultural life except broadcasting are covered. There will be a separate Scottish arts council, but no body responsible for broadcasting.
  It struck me as interesting that the Minister for Education and Industry made a number of remarks about education. He said that the Scottish Parliament—at least concerning education—will not import measures which reflect the prevailing ideology at Westminster and which would be so damaging. That is an interesting use of language.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who once told me to cut to the chase, seems to have cut to the wrong clause. Clause 23, to which he referred, is specific that witnesses and documents can be called on
  "devolved matters concerning Scotland,
  matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers."
  I am not certain how the BBC or the ITC would apply to that clause.
  Ms Cunningham: Indeed, they do not. In no way will the BBC or the ITC be accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
  I return to my comments on the Minister's use of language concerning education. I found it interesting because the phrase is one which I could certainly use without blushing. I wondered whether his youthful membership of the Scottish National party had not quite been eradicated. If such comments apply in respect of education, why in heaven's name do they not apply to broadcasting? I do not see how the argument can be made in respect of education but not broadcasting.
  The omission of broadcasting represents a major inconsistency in the Bill. In the arts, Gaelic and education, broadcasting plays a central and vital role, and the SNP believes that it should be devolved as well. Rapid changes are taking place in broadcasting. Indeed, such changes, especially the imminent arrival of digital television, have already provoked major changes in ownership and control of the Scottish media. I know that hon. Members who represent the area covered by Grampian Television are already expressing concerns about that.
  Mr. Grieve: I come in on a discussion which I have no doubt will be pursued in Committee. Does the hon. Lady agree that one reading of clause 23 certainly gives the Scottish Parliament power to require attendance at a Select Committee in order to answer questions by organisations that produce material which comes within devolved provisions? She is complaining that the Scottish Parliament will not have control over the BBC's charter in so far as it relates to broadcasting in Scotland. She is in fact asking for the BBC to be split in two.
  Ms Cunningham: Although I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I notice that the one person who has not yet leapt to his feet to give any reassurance is the Minister. Until some such reassurance is given, we must take the view that the apparent omission between the publication of the White Paper and of the Bill was deliberate. If it was not deliberate it will be rectified.
  188
  I look forward to that. Nevertheless, even if it were rectified, we would still be arguing for full devolution of broadcasting. At least the White Paper offered a minimal amount of control.
  Mr. Wilson: In her public pronouncement on the matter, the hon. Lady talks blithely about controlling broadcasting. I have listened to her go on for some minutes on the subject, but I am still no clearer about what exactly she wants to control. Does she want to control the content of broadcasting or its structures? If so, is not she endorsing what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has just proposed? Does not she in fact want to set up a Scottish broadcasting corporation, a Scottish ITC and, who knows which other bodies? If she elucidates what she wants to control, it might be easier to help her.
  Ms Cunningham: If the Minister will hold his horses, he might hear one or two things that apply to that criticism. I do not take on board by any manner of means the implied criticism. I have already stated that we are not talking about an independent Scottish broadcasting commission. Would that we were! We shall not be proposing that in the amendments that we intend to table. I described the changes that are taking place and the need for the Scottish Parliament to be part of them.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Cunningham: No, I will not give way. I want to move on. Some of what I have to say will answer the Minister's point.
  I understand the way in which the Minister looks at the issue. He thinks that, since broadcasting is outwith the remit of politicians, it would be folly to hand it to the Scottish Parliament. That is the basic line that the Minister is peddling. Leaving aside the small contradiction in his remarks that is exemplified by the specific reservation of broadcasting powers—since, if Parliament does not have powers, I do not see how they can be reserved—we are arguing for devolution to the Scottish Parliament of powers that are presently exercised by the Westminster Parliament in relation to Scotland and the services there.
  In keeping with the devolutionary—as opposed to the independent spirit—of the Bill, such an argument would exclude a number of areas that would be included under any independence proposals. It would exclude, for example, the allocation of frequencies, since they are affected by international agreement. We are trying to look at the matter within the spirit of devolution, difficult though that may sometimes be. The truth is that the framework for broadcasting is set by politicians. We desire at least to create a framework for Scotland, not only for what cannot happen but for what can happen.
  For example, we might insist on there being more take-up from the independent sector. Scotland is not currently well served by broadcasting. Up to 97 per cent. of news and current affairs on Scottish television comes from network sources, which remain largely uninterested in the debate in Scotland. For example, I understand that last night the 9 pm news headlines did not even mention this debate.
  Network coverage is not designed with a Scottish audience in mind. Perhaps that is what the Labour party wants to continue, to ensure that news remains dominated

  189
  by big brother and Big Ben. We propose that there should be exceptions to the reservation in schedule 5 so that scheduling and finance in so far as they relate to services in Scotland—for example, responsibility for BBC Scotland and its services within Scotland—are devolved to a broadcasting council for Scotland, whereas the BBC generally remains responsible for United Kingdom services.
  Equally, sthe Scottish Parliament would have powers over a Scottish ITC equivalent to those currently exercised by Westminster over the ITC. With a proper devolution of broadcasting it would become possible to allocate in Scotland the unused frequencies that I am told exist, but have not been allocated because their counterparts are in use in England, and England is where the decisions are made.
  Leaving the situation unchanged would lead to anomalies and inconsistencies. For example, I understand that STV is now forced to pay for large chunks of network programming, even for programmes that it does not broadcast, or even want to broadcast. Surely it would be preferable for STV to be able to opt in rather than opt out, paying along the way only for the programmes that it uses.
  No doubt some people in the Chamber will object that in those circumstances Scotland would end up with parochial and irrelevant programmes. However, in my view we are already subjected to much parochial and irrelevant material from a Londoncentric broadcasting base that has trouble seeing beyond the M25. That situation cannot continue after devolution, and that is why we shall table our amendments.
  Yes, the Parliament will be able to make substantial changes in many areas. I look forward to some of those—changes affecting land, law and local government, for example—but even within the spirit of the scheme there are major improvements that we should be able to make. I believe that broadcasting is one which, on the face of it, should receive widespread support, especially as it was originally designated for inclusion in the list of devolved rather than reserved powers.
  6.12 pm
  Ms Sandra Osborne: In keeping with Madam Speaker's request, I shall be brief. I apologise in advance if what I say is somewhat repetitive. I have sat through the debate both yesterday and today so I know that, unfortunately, some of the points that I wish to make have already been made by others. No doubt that is inevitable at this stage. However, I have great pride in and enthusiasm for the Bill, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me.
  What I am holding up may look to Opposition Members like a credit card, but they would not get very far if they tried to buy anything with it. My hon. Friends may recognise it as the card containing Labour's five early pledges.
  "Keep this card and see that we keep our promises",
  it says. For Scotland our pledges were slightly different in that, because of the swifter Scottish juvenile justice system, we did not mention a fast-track punishment for young offenders. Instead, our card states:
  "Legislate for a Scottish Parliament in our first year by holding a referendum on devolution and campaigning for a Yes Vote".
  190
  First and foremost the Bill is about trust, and about promises kept.
  The Labour party always said that we would deliver a Scottish Parliament—the Parliament that the people wanted. Some Opposition Members did everything that they could to question and undermine that commitment. I am especially pleased to be standing here now, because throughout the long unofficial election campaign and the six weeks of the official campaign we heard the Conservatives say that the last thing that we needed was more parliamentarians. Indeed, we have heard that allegation repeated today by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  However, the people who said those things are now in Scotland scrambling for nominations to stand for that same Scottish Parliament. To be fair, I must admit that the Conservatives were not all singing from the same hymn sheet. While my predecessor prophesied the end of the Union, others were saying that they had always been devolutionists. We have heard that repeated in the debate too. While some talked of abolishing the Parliament if it was set up, others warned, "A Scottish Parliament is not for Christmas, it is for life."
  As for the Scottish National party, it told us that the Parliament would not be worth having. It would be a toytown, Mickey Mouse effort, and in any case the referendum was a cunning device to get off the hook and fail to deliver. None the less, I welcome the last-minute conversions to the cause, from whatever quarter they come. I also welcome the positive public support given by the SNP during the referendum campaign, as well as the positive contribution we have had from SNP Members to this debate. That has been gratifying to hear.
  However, the party that has consistently said that there will be a Scottish Parliament has kept its promise in government at every stage of the process, just as it is keeping all its other pledges—on the minimum wage, welfare to work, reform of the health service, tackling crime and investing in education, child care and nursery provision.
  We have kept faith with the principles of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I join others in praising the convention and all the hard work that it carried out over the years. I was not involved personally, but it is gratifying to see that all that hard work has now to come to fruition.
  We campaigned vigorously for a double yes vote in the referendum, and we secured three quarters of the vote. We delivered a White Paper clearly outlining what was proposed, and now we have delivered the Bill. The whole timetable has been driven by the Government's determination that there shall be a Scottish Parliament.
  The support for that idea, both from the Government and from others throughout the community in Scotland, derives from the principles undergirding the policy. We genuinely support a Scottish Parliament looking after Scottish affairs, while remaining within the United Kingdom and playing our part in Europe and the world.
  We do not support the Parliament for the same reasons as the SNP—reasons that have just been outlined by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham)—nor do we take the negative view outlined by some that the Parliament should be supported simply to stop the break-up of Britain. We genuinely see it as good for

  191
  Scotland. It will be a shot in the arm for our democracy and for our self-confidence, economically, culturally and politically.
  I shall now turn from promises kept to the opportunity that the Parliament offers for a new politics. I have not noticed any particular interest in that aspect of the argument on the part of Opposition Members during the day and a half that this debate has lasted so far. Perhaps they should consider how people throughout the country, in other parts of the United Kingdom as well as in Scotland, view our democracy at the moment—with cynicism and alienation. In that context the possibility of a new politics should be welcomed.
  Keeping our promise on the Scottish Parliament in itself goes some way to restore public trust in the political process following the public cynicism born in part of the years of Conservative government.
  Changes are being considered in the way in which this House operates, and I welcome that—but with a brand new Parliament we shall have a unique opportunity to do things differently from the outset.
  Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Lady of the view that the new politics as practised in Paisley and Glasgow will reduce the cynicism she talks about?
  Ms Osborne: The new politics formed as part of the Scottish Parliament will include discussions with all the people and will be different from the cynical and hostile attitude displayed by the hon. Gentleman.
  There will be a place for all-party discussions. These have already begun, as was announced yesterday, and I genuinely welcome that. There will be a place for history, tradition and institutions, but not at the expense of modern culture and civilised behaviour for the 21st century. If the Scottish Parliament is to have credibility and is to contribute to the evolution of democracy in this country and beyond, there must be no place for practices that make sensible co-operation impossible, polarise every issue and inhibit thought and constructive debate.
  There have been 200 Acts passed since 1979 removing democratic responsibilities from elected councils and there has been an enormous growth in the quango state. In that context, the Scottish Parliament is not a stand-alone issue, but is part of a wider process; an extension of democracy, including the Welsh Assembly, an elected authority for London and the opening up of debate on appropriate regional decentralisation.
  Conservative Members have commented on the principle of regional government. I will not attempt to suggest what is appropriate for England, but I believe that the institution of a Scottish Parliament will open up the debate. That is why the type of Parliament that we create is important, as it will provide the model for improving democracy, and not just in Scotland.
  We need a modern legislature with sensible working hours and conditions, and it must be accessible to the public. I know—as others do—of the level of interest in Scotland and the enthusiasm, particularly among young people, for the Parliament. I hope that the structure of the Parliament will encourage participation and generate further enthusiasm.
  192
  The Parliament needs to be representative of Scottish society as a whole, politically, geographically and socially. However, it must go further than being a beauty contest between the parties to see how many show business personalities can be cajoled onto the additional member list. People of different political views will be genuinely delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to stand for the Scottish Parliament because they all recognise the wisdom and experience that he will bring.
  We need to draw on a range of different experience and we need to ensure the fair representation of women and men. If this institution can be transformed in a single election into one that has more than 100 women Members of Parliament, there is no excuse for failing to find gender balance in the Scottish Parliament which has no sitting Members and no favourite sons.
  Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Lady agree that any attempt to achieve what she calls "gender balance" by positive discrimination in favour of women is simply an insult to women, because it presupposes that women are not capable of doing on their own what men are capable of doing—in other words, being elected to this institution or to the new Scottish Parliament?
  Ms Osborne: I totally disagree with everything that the hon. Lady has said. I find it offensive—many other women agree—that we are not represented in public life as we should be. As we all know, that has nothing to do with merit and, as we can see, the Conservative party does not regard this as a significant issue. It does not regard the fact that women are under-represented in politics as a problem. That is one of the reasons why the Conservatives have no Scottish Members of Parliament.
  The election on 1 May brought equality into this House. Now we can go one better and achieve equality in the Scottish Parliament. We do not want equality for its own sake, but for the positive difference that it will make well beyond the life of the political institution.
  We have legislation to ensure that women and men are treated the same, but there are real differences in their social and economic positions. Girls in Scottish secondary schools achieve better exam results than boys, but fewer go on to higher education. Full-time women workers earn only three quarters of their male counterparts' wages. Only a small percentage of women retire on the full basic pension. Women make up about a third of solicitors and 10 per cent. of police officers, and there is only one woman judge. In public bodies over which the Scottish Parliament will have authority, women make up 40 per cent. of the members, but only 25 per cent. when children's panels are excluded.
  During yesterday's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said that the Government are committed to gender equality in the Scottish Parliament and asked whether a temporary special measure could be introduced to exclude the first election from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I am aware that Scottish Office Ministers are making strenuous efforts to examine how a 50:50 gender balance can be achieved, and I look forward to a report on their progress.
  I noted that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) also raised the possibility of tabling an amendment relating to the Sex Discrimination

  193
  Act. I welcome his interest in the issue of gender equality, but I hope that it does not signify the laying of the groundwork to renege on the agreement that his party has entered into to ensure gender equality following discussions with the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
  It has been shown that when women are fairly represented alongside men in the decision-making process, there is a difference in the way things are done and in the policy priorities. Not only can the Scottish Parliament be a shining example of new politics, it can begin to promote new politics. On that subject, it was very unfair of the media to make so much of the fact that the site for the new Parliament is to be a brewery. They did not mention that it is also the site of an old folk's home. That is equally significant.
  As an aside, I concur with many of my hon. Friends that the distribution of jobs associated with the Scottish Parliament should be considered throughout Scotland. Just as the competition to design the Parliament building will be open to architects from throughout the world, the Parliament is a completely new political institution which can contribute to the development of democracy in other countries.
  Just as the campaign for a Scottish Parliament drew strength from the examples of Catalonia and the German lander, we have the chance to encourage developments elsewhere. Just as the movement for gender equality draws from the successes of other countries, we have the chance to promote further equality elsewhere by successfully achieving equality in a Scottish Parliament.
  Finally, I wish to say a few words about the scope of the Parliament's powers and the opportunities they present. I was around during the previous devolution referendum and legislation in 1978 and 1979. I know what was proposed then, and this Parliament is no 1978-style assembly. This is a Scottish Parliament for the new millennium with powers over all Scottish Office functions. This is a Scottish Parliament which will act in partnership with the UK Parliament in many areas of reserved powers. This is a Scottish Parliament which will have oversight of other Scottish public bodies—more than 100 are listed, especially within the health service and local government. This is a Scottish Parliament with the discipline and responsibility of defined financial powers.
  Let me comment briefly on the importance of the range of functions devolved. The social and economic problems facing Scotland do not arise from national suppression or London mismanagement—they result from a political failure to tackle inequality and from the narrow centralised nature of our democracy.
  The problems we experience in Scotland are no different from the problems experienced in other parts of the UK—inadequate social services, poor housing, homelessness and health service waiting lists. The distinctive and separate Scottish education system and criminal justice system—indeed, the whole devolved administration of the Scottish Office—is crying out for political accountability.
  From my background in local government and my previous job dealing with the problems of homelessness, I know at first hand the distinctive Scottish tradition of socially rented housing. The Scottish Parliament will be able to address the specific and distinctive nature of Scotland's economic, social, political and cultural needs in a way that will liberate our capacities and aspirations.
  194
  In conclusion, the Bill is about trust and promises kept by the Government, but it is also about new politics, democratic advances affecting well beyond the Scottish borders and the opportunity to take control of our own affairs to the economic, social, political and cultural benefit of Scotland. It represents the settled will of the Scottish people being put into practice by the Government in whom the people placed their trust.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. James Gray: While listening to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), I was reminded of a recent former pupils' dinner at my school, Glasgow high school, when I was sitting next to the rector, who turned to me and said, "What's a nice boy like you doing in the Conservative party?" I explained why I was in the party and why I believed in the Union. He explained why he was such a passionate Scottish nationalist and why he was so passionately convinced that Scotland must go her own way. I then asked him to tell me where he was educated and he said, "Rugby and Cambridge."
  Significantly, the hon. Member for Perth spent her formative years, from the ages of eight to 25, in Australia. She therefore went to great lengths to rubbish those of us who do not feel any need to establish our Scottish credentials. My Scottish credentials are available for all to see in "Dod", and I intend to waste no more time on the matter.
  Mr. Canavan: May we have an interpreter?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He presumes that because I have a vaguely English accent, I am somehow English, as was the case when I fought a seat in Scotland in 1992. If he believes that a man who attended Hillhead primary school, Glasgow university and Glasgow high school, whose father was a minister in the Church of Scotland and became Moderator of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland and whose every ancestor was 100 per cent. Scottish—a man who never left the borders of Scotland once until the age of 20—is not Scottish, he is wrong. He is judging a book by its cover and making a significant mistake in doing so.
  Mr. Swinney rose—
  Mr. Gray: I will not take any more interventions on the subject of Scottishness now. My point was that when I spoke recently in the referendum debate, I spoke as a Scot, and 100 per cent. Scot I am indeed, but, like hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, I fully accept the outcome of the referendum that I so wholly opposed. I accept the fact that the people of Scotland—my colleagues, relations and friends—have now voted convincingly in favour of devolution. I deeply regret that decision, but I none the less speak today not as a Scot, but as the representative of an English constituency, which puts a different complexion on the matter.
  The Bill will be desperately damaging to the interests of the people of North Wiltshire. First, it will, without question, lead to the end of the Union as we know it. I say so for two reasons. Two time bombs are ticking away underneath the Bill and sooner or later, whether in 10, 20 or 50 years, they will explode and lead to the end

  195
  of the Union as we know it. The first is the devolution drug, which has affected this nation since we first invented the notion of administrative devolution around the end of the previous century. Since then, we have made more and more devolutionary changes, handing more and more power to the Scottish Office and Scottish Ministers, culminating in the new Parliament that we are setting up.
  The history of devolution shows that the more power we get, the more we want. If anything demonstrates that that is the case, it is the discussion of the past two days. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) argued, convincingly enough, that the railways are such an important issue that they should be handed over to the Scottish Parliament. Since then, more and more hon. Members have argued that a variety of the powers reserved under schedule 5 should be handed over to the Scottish Parliament.
  Imagine what it will be like when the Scottish Parliament is in existence and the properly elected representatives of the Scottish people are sitting in Edinburgh. People will raise all sorts of subjects at their surgeries and will ask why people in Westminster continue to take decisions on, for example, the railways in Ayr or the funicular railway in the Cairngorms. You name the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the people of Scotland will be telling their Members of the Scottish Parliament, "We want you to decide these matters in Edinburgh." Those MSPs will properly argue in Edinburgh over and again that more powers must be handed over to Edinburgh. They will argue that only the residual powers left in Westminster prevent them from carrying out their due mandate.
  The effect on finance, to which so many hon. Members have alluded, will be precisely the same. The situation is directly analogous to the relationship between Westminster and local government. Anyone who has been involved in local government in the past few decades will know that increasing numbers of local authorities have said, "We want to do X, Y or Z, but the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and our paymasters in Westminster are preventing us from doing it." Precisely the same will happen when the Scottish Parliament is in existence, except that it will be magnified to the nth degree.
  Members of the Scottish Parliament will make all sorts of legitimate and sensible decisions on all sorts of issues. They will vote to give teachers more money and vote money for all sorts of things, such as better roads and trains. You name it and they will vote for it in the Scottish Parliament, but the 3p in the pound will not even begin to pay for it. What will happen then? It will be one of two things. MSPs will say that they are being capped because of a law passed in the old Westminster Parliament—the Bill. They will say, "Isn't that disgraceful? Our people in Edinburgh want us to spend the money, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London is preventing us from doing so." By definition, the cap will be busted.
  Alternatively the people of Scotland will, reasonably, ask for more money to be spent on Scotland, 3p in the pound will not be nearly enough and more and more money will be spent, legitimately, on the people of Scotland. Ultimately, that will lead to independent taxation and finance and an independent Chancellor of the
  196
  Exchequer for Scotland. Those are the two time bombs that are ticking away—the devolution drug and the taxation time bomb.
  I do not intend to concentrate entirely on the effects on the people of North Wiltshire of the inevitability of independence for Scotland. Far more potent for those people are the conundrums laid down so well 30 years ago or more by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—conundrums that lie on the table today as unanswered as they were then. If I may deviate for one second, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my ancestor the covenantor John Parker fought for his beliefs in Scotland, was captured at the battle of Rullion Green in 1666 and was condemned to hanging, drawing and quartering by the general who took part in the battle. I regret to say that that general was none other than Bloody Dalzell of the Binns, and I forgive his descendant for that ancient wrong. None the less, the questions that he laid down are as potent as ever.
  Asymmetric devolution is a crafty little expression dreamt up by the Front-Bench spokesman. It is an obvious absurdity that Scottish Members of Parliament will have a say in education and health in North Wiltshire, but I may have no say in those matters as they affect Scotland. My constituents in Chippenham and elsewhere are already complaining about it. That absurdity would be even more magnified if there might have been a Conservative Government in England were it not for Labour Members of Parliament coming down from Scotland. Then we would have the absolute absurdity of health and education in Wiltshire being determined not by the Conservative majority in England, but by an overall majority in this House that was Labour because of representation from north of the border. That is a nonsense and it cannot be sustainable.
  Incidentally, the over-representation question has not been addressed. I welcome the proposal in the Bill to reduce the—
  Sir Robert Smith: How does the hon. Gentleman think the House should respond to the referendum result? What action would he propose in response to the wish expressed in that referendum?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman asks what I would do if I were talking about Scotland, but I think that I made it clear that I am talking about the effect of the proposals on my constituents in Wiltshire. I very much regret that the referendum took place and that the people of Scotland have chosen that route. I am speaking on behalf of the people of North Wiltshire and I do not intend to pontificate on what should happen to the people of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Perth asked me not to. I very much regret the fact that there is so little reference in the Bill to what will happen to my constituents.
  Mrs. Laing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the referendum to which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) referred would have had a lot more constitutional legitimacy had my hon. Friend's constituents in North Wiltshire and mine in Epping Forest been allowed to vote? The Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Gray: That is absolutely correct. I especially regret the fact that the Scottish soldiers based in my

  197
  constituency, who moved their votes to the south—which is perfectly reasonable if one is based there for some years—but who serve in tartan, are members of Scottish regiments and are more determinedly Scottish than most, were prevented from voting in the referendum.
  Scotland has always been over-represented in Parliament and I welcome the fact that that representation is to be reduced, but I am deeply puzzled by this question: if 75 per cent. of matters affecting the people of Scotland are to be discussed in Edinburgh, why on earth should there still be 50 or 56—whatever the number will be—Scottish Members here? Surely the reduction should be to a small lump—a small group of Scottish Members of Parliament who will represent the interests of the Scottish people on issues such as foreign policy and defence. What on earth are those Scottish Members to do all day long, when they are no longer to deal with constituency matters?
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) addressed that point a moment ago when he said that he intended to become an MSP and to remain a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What I said was that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is not a great deal of important work for Scottish Members of Parliament to do in Westminster. I intend to stay in Westminster and not to stand for the Scottish Parliament, much as I would like to.
  Mr. Gray: I regret the fact that I misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said. There are none the less quite a large number of Members of Parliament who intend to become MSPs and remain in the House. That must mean either that they are doing half a job now or that they will do half a job in Edinburgh; one cannot do two jobs then and claim that one is doing them as well as one is doing one job now. If the Bill becomes law, it will not be enough to reduce Scottish over-representation to the level that now exists in England. Scottish representation here must be reduced much further.
  My constituents also resent greatly the fact that some Scottish Members will have ministerial roles in English Departments of State. That is an absurdity. Why on earth should a Scottish Member take an interest as a Minister in purely English matters? Surely ministerial jobs in English Departments should be restricted entirely to English Members.
  The ultimate absurdity under the West Lothian question comes about when the Labour party is maintained in power in Westminster wholly as a result of its Scottish Members. It would be an absolute absurdity for my constituents to labour for years to come under a Labour Government not because the people of England had voted for them, but because the people of Scotland had voted for representatives in Westminster as well as for their own representatives in Edinburgh.
  Those conundrums, first outlined by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, and which I have expressed so much less eloquently than he did, are unanswerable and will blast a hole through the centre of the Bill. We shall have to address them in detail in Committee, and the Government will have to come up with detailed answers to the real concerns of my constituents. If they do not, they will indeed have founded their Scottish Parliament on top of a ticking time bomb. It is not a Scottish but an English
  198
  time bomb: the people of England will ask why on earth the Scots who have gone off to look after themselves and run their own Parliament should dominate us and take such a keen interest in our affairs in Chippenham.
  Mr. McLeish: Give us the evidence.
  Mr. Gray: I will indeed send the Minister all the letters that I have received from my constituents on the subject, and I shall expect a personal reply from him. I shall expect him to answer the points about the West Lothian question, and if he does so, he will be doing something that Ministers have signally failed to do in this debate; they will have to do a certain amount of thinking between now and when they reply.
  My constituents in North Wiltshire look on the Bill as the beginning of the end of the Union as we know and love it. They foresee all manner of appalling catastrophes, and they do not accept that they should continue to be dominated by the Scottish Labour party. Anyone who cares about the future of the Union should join me in the Lobby tonight.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I declare the fact that I was born in Edinburgh and my father was born in Edinburgh, but I am half Irish and half Scots. I would be very proud if I was half Ukrainian, half Polish or half Lithuanian; I represent people in Midlothian who happen to be miners and mining families. The difference between some Conservative Members and me is that I am a Scotsman representing a Scottish seat. I know that I have been closer to the Scottish people for many years than certain Conservative Members. I have not been in the House very long, but I have been around a long time, and I have worked with the people, not just listened to them.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues and their staff on the timeous way in which they have introduced the Bill. It was done, as promised, within a year, as a priority for the people of Scotland. It is an historic event. Yes, it is emotional, but more than that, it is a fulfilment of the dream of many people in Scotland. It is as obvious as that. It is a strengthening of the Union and of democracy in Scotland. It is ridiculous that I have to say that, after all the debate over the years.
  We still hear the same ridiculous arguments from a certain quarter that has no representatives in Scotland. Some of the Caledonian Society Scots on the Opposition Front Bench who dictate their opinions to us meet many workers on their estates and perhaps when they get their hair cut. I am proud to be of peasant stock, but I am not an inverted snob. I am a very good friend of some of my aristocratic colleagues. I am sitting here because I like to sit beside my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I do not agree with him one iota on this issue, as I have told him in the past, in the nicest possible way.
  Mr. Dalyell: Nice? No. Let us say colourful.
  Mr. Clarke: The difference between us and some other societies is that we can live together although we differ. We do not want to be dictated to from afar. There is a colonial mentality that says, "We know better than the

  199
  natives. It may hurt you now, but you'll thank us in the future." How many times have we heard that? By the way, we do not need to go outside Scotland to find exploitation, because the Scottish coal owners were chromium-plated, de luxe models.
  I must record for posterity the names of many of my colleagues, now departed, who kept the flame alive. I must mention Jim Boyack. We knew him because he kept alive the campaign for a Scottish assembly. I also want to mention many trade unionists and former colleagues, such as Alex Kitson; Johnnie Walker of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen; and of course the great Jimmy Milne, who came from Aberdeen but was known as the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
  The STUC started off the convention. I remember, because I was there. There was an unofficial convention; yes, the Scottish National party, the Confederation of British Industry and the Conservatives were represented in our first two meetings, but some of them drifted away, for some mysterious reason, after the convention became official.
  A great role was played by the trade union movement in Scotland, especially the STUC under Campbell Christie and others, with the Transport and General Workers Union; ASLEF; the Fire Brigades Union; what is now known as the RMT; the General and Municipal; the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union; and Unison. I must not forget my own union, the National Union of Mineworkers, Scottish area, and the role of Mick McGahey and other colleagues. They were the people who campaigned. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) can cough and splutter. I hope that he chokes on it. I should not say that to an hon. Member, but if it makes him choke, there is something wrong with him. Go and see about it.
  We have to have a meaningful Parliament. That was the slogan. We do not want a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We do not want some kind of administrative assembly thrown at us. It has to be a legislative assembly. What will it do? It will give us more detail and more time for consultation on Scottish affairs than we have ever had here, with due respect to this place. The priorities of elsewhere always took precedence over Scottish affairs in parliamentary business.
  A Scottish Parliament will provide accountability and will be recognised by the Scottish people. It will not be able to hide behind civil servants of "Yes, Minister" calibre. A Minister for fisheries, a Minister for agriculture, a Minister for education, a Minister for health and for many other subjects will be identified, named and acknowledged by all. They will certainly have the power and the responsibility, but, more than that, they will have accountability for their work.
  The most important aspect is accessibility. The people of Scotland and Scottish organisations will be able to go to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that caring people will be appointed to positions of power. More than anything else, it will be a Parliament of elected representatives, not a quango of persons appointed by the Secretary of State or someone else, people defeated in an election—or his or her spouse, by the way—put in to take responsibilities.
  200
  Much effort has been made to shackle democracy, and I make the threat that such a process will be met with anger and action by the Scottish public. The House must realise that delays or political stymieing by the other place, especially their honourable lordships, will not be tolerated. I am making a declaration. We have our mandate of a referendum of the people of Scotland, and that means that there will be a Bill and there will be a Parliament in Scotland. We must adhere to that. We have no alternative.
  I am aware of people in this place who can split hairs with laser beam accuracy and create deep pools of red tape to catch the unwary. Yes, and they roll about like hippos in those pools of red tape. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench should drain those pools so that the Bill can have a true and clear passage through this place.
  I have listened to some of the statements made by Opposition Members. I wrote some comments on the back of my notes. I was a councillor for 16 years. I do not have to read about it; I was there. I take exception to people who say that my colleagues who are in office just now in Scotland, in the west and in the rest of the Scotland, are any less devoted to local government than me or anyone else in central Government. It is ridiculous and insulting to say that local government in Scotland is all wrong. If it is all wrong, the previous Government reformed it. They reformed it on the basis of political bias. They wanted to get rid of the regions, which were so effective in Scotland.
  If local government is to be reformed, I am sure that the new set-up in Edinburgh will do it far more sympathetically, democratically and efficiently than the rest.
  Mr. Ancram: It may take powers to itself.
  Mr. Clarke: It will not take any powers away from local government. It will be there to make laws, just like other people.
  My council was not capped. Who started the nonsense of capping? When councils had so-called independence, we stood by the rates that we set. I hope that we shall go back to that position and give back to the people the right to decide their future.
  The financial argument is an absolute nonsense. I say just two words—poll tax. That is all that I need to say. Yes, we shall make mistakes, but, as someone once said, they will be correct mistakes. We want the same as anyone else. We want the same as people in former colonies who now have freedom. We will make our own mistakes. A lot of mistakes have been made in this place and they have cost us a lot of money.
  Democracy is the most important aspect of the proposal. The separatist argument is a nonsense. People in Scotland are far more sensible than Opposition Members think. I do not know where people get their arguments from. The Bill is not perfect. Yes, it will be adjusted and extended. Yes, we shall learn from it. But it is a start. That is the most important facet to me. We are giving Scotland the opportunity that it deserves and wants. Anyone who dares to stand in its way will be walked over and forgotten for ever more, as happened to a certain party not far away from here.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not think that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) needs a laser beam to split a hair. His roar and sledgehammer do a pretty good demolition job as it is.
  I want to make the observation that this is the end of the unitary state for Great Britain, for the British Isles, after 290 years. There can be no question but that the Bill will be carried by a large majority of the House formed by members of three parties across the House. That is the reality. It will happen whatever my regrets about it, whatever my nostalgic, romantic belief and my passion for the progress of this island Government as an island state, which has led us to freedom, liberty and democracy—a House which has been formed by the genius of its constituent parts. The central theme to that was our equality as citizens.
  The most distressing aspect of the construction of the Bill is its almost wilful determination not to deal with the question of our equality as citizens within the government of this island. That the Government have decided to proceed with the measure and to reject that central principle of democracy is extraordinary to me. The history of the Labour party was to extend the franchise and ensure that, in the democratic age, the weight of our votes and the purpose of our votes was equal across the Union government.
  We shall no longer have a unitary form of government. Some of the purposes and powers that were held in trust for us all, and which we decided together as a common British people through this Parliament, will no longer be the reserve of this Parliament. I do not make light of this monumental step, because it is important. It is not a matter which has been debated for just 18 or 20 years; it is a theme which has recurred since the 1890s. Sometimes one ponders the wisdom or foresight of Gladstone. Perhaps as I grow older, I am becoming more of a Gladstonian in the sense that I want to identify the principle that unites our democracy.
  In all the arguments that I have tried to make in this House, whether on the rule of the European Union or the rule of Downing street, I have always tried to assert the essential quality of us as citizens and us as elected representatives, holding within our core all the powers of the state to ensure equality across this land.
  When I listened to the Scottish nationalist representative for the fair city of Perth, I could only cry out in a backward-looking way, "Where is Sir Nicholas Fairbairn?" At least he was spirited, and stood for the Union.
  Mr. McAllion: He is somewhere much hotter than here.
  Mr. Shepherd: He was spirited, that is true. There would have been a bonny zest, not a dour bid to become the Minister of propaganda and to control the means of broadcast and freedom of expression, to try to interpret for the benefit of the Scottish National party something that many of us in the House hold in trust: freedom of expression in the press and the lack of central and political control over it. I commend the Government to the extent that such matters are protected and closely watched in the Bill.
  202
  I am trying to look at the matter from the point of view of the Union because that is what I was born in. It was a unitary state. As I see it, we are now confronted with a federal proposition. Scotland is to have devolved powers. In the construction of the Bill, that will cause great difficulty.
  There are two great omissions. I accept the Claim of Right because I have always believed profoundly that sovereignty lies with the citizen—we, the people—and that the magnificence of this Parliament lies in its being the representative institution of us, the people. We are either one people or we are divided peoples. If this is a grope towards a federal system, then, for the powers that we call devolved, I want to maintain the central grasp on what is the purpose and expression of this Parliament.
  Scotland's ambitions cannot be met even within the terms of the proposed legislation for devolution. It will need the means to fund itself. There cannot be a call on English constituencies to fund the ambitions—the particulars—in what I shall call the devolved areas, so that they are funded by others who have no part in them or a say in how the money raised across the Union should be spent. That will be a constant source of profound irritation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out how that may happen. Why should the ambitions of Scotland depend on the transfer of funds from his constituency or, perhaps more relevantly, from those parts of northern England that, by any criteria, are depressed? In a unitary state, money would be transferred to them. At present, the balance of the argument, for historic reasons, lies with Scotland. Scotland is better off than Wales, yet, on a per capita distribution of central funds, Scotland receives more money than Wales. If that situation were to be equalised, it would be at the expense of Scotland.
  Underlying much of the Government's argument in favour of the Bill is a perverse clinging to the Barnett formula that is unsustainable over the long term. The Parliament of the United Kingdom will not dispose of funds in that way for ever. No Government can maintain that that will be so. That is why it is essential for the well-being of the Scottish Parliament that it has the right to raise funds. I further suggest that if the Scottish Parliament raises the funds for the devolved matters, the other side of the mirror—perhaps I have not said this clearly enough—is that England is as ancient, proud and great a nation as Scotland. England will therefore want to exercise the mirror image of those powers.
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: It is about time that English Tory Members woke up.
  Mr. Shepherd: I know the recently elected hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) well, because I hear in his voice that knowing Edinburgh accent that so irritates half the world. The extent of ignorance involved does not matter; it is said in such a knowing, profound and absolute way. We are trying to question and to work our way towards a proper balance in the Union. What will be appropriate for the future and what will make the arrangements sustainable?
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Much of what he has said has been,

  203
  as always, interesting and thoughtful, but he is clearly leading up to a recognition that now that the unitary state is over, we must build a federal United Kingdom. For God's sake, can he persuade the leadership of his party to recognise that?
  Mr. Shepherd: I respect the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but political life is a constant debate—the weighing and evaluation of issues. I often recall the past because I know that my journey has been long and has often taken different courses, as has the history of this island. My frustration is partly because it seems from the debate as if England is not an ancient and equal part of the Union. I understand that this is a Bill for Scotland, but how will it be sustainable if we do not do something about the English element? That is all that I am groping my way towards.
  A weakness of the Government's construction is that they rightly assert that this is the determination of the Government, supported by large numbers of English Members who knew the programme. However, none of them are here to contribute. Do they have no view?
  What about the electoral arrangements we are to have? Scottish Members of the Union Parliament will have no competence for matters such as social security and education, the bread and butter of our daily lives. In Edinburgh, for the same constituencies, there will be a Members of the Scottish Parliament who will be competent for those matters. I see only divisiveness there. Even if, as is likely on the basis of current constituencies, both Members come from the same party, where will it lead? The aspiration and ambition of constituency Members—don't I know it well—is to cry out for the alleviation of problems in their constituencies. If the funding is granted outside the Union Parliament, the representative of the Union Parliament, who would have no direct responsibility for education, health or whatever the issue may be, will always risk the charge that he or she has not secured a sufficient settlement for Scotland. I see only conflict in that.
  That is why if we look forward, we are looking forward to a federal Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said yesterday that that cannot work because of the size of England. I do not have that fear. I do not see why it should not work. The Union Parliament would be left all the reserved matters. That is the only basis for Union finance. I am not sure that those who believe in the Union would disagree with the reserved powers: overall responsibility for our constitution; our foreign policy; our defence and national security; the protection of borders. Those powers are fundamental to our island and to our island Government. There is also stability of the United Kingdom's fiscal, economic and monetary system, which must be right, and the common market for United Kingdom goods and services.
  If my history is right, it was access to English markets which determined Scotland's accession to the Union, not the bribery and pots of gold of the family of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
  204
  It was the commercial classes of Glasgow and the lowlands, realising the importance of access to the English market.
  Mrs. Ray Michie rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not mean to go on for much longer.
  The English market was put at risk by the English Parliament as a coercive measure to intimidate—in the end, I think, rightly—and to bring Scotland into a Union with the English Parliament.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry, but I will not give way.
  Those reserved powers also relate to employment legislation, social security policy and administration, regulation of certain professions, and transport safety and regulations. Those are the appropriate matters for what will be the Union Parliament. That is my basis for arguing that Union, national finances should be raised for that purpose. Therefore, the other, equal side of the coin is that a Scottish Parliament should be responsible, as an English Parliament should be responsible, for the raising of moneys to meet the devolved matters—health, education and training, local government, social work and housing.
  The House is familiar with the list of devolved matters as they are called. The balance of those may not be right, but when one looks at the federal structures of the world, one must see that, in the end, accountability can exist only if one raises the money and then has to stand in front of an electorate to justify it.
  The English are quiescent at the moment and, by and large, they are benignly disposed towards the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that they realise the risk inherent in the scheme in front of the House. England awakes only when it is in disaster—that seems to be the lesson of history. The truth is that we do not have to look very far ahead to suppose that the Prime Minister wins the next election but his majority is formed only on the basis of Scotland. It is the killer question.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to whom my heart goes out in the pan sense of our Union, has patiently set out that argument over many years. That the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland, no less, who has fought another argument for many years, refuse adamantly to recognise the weight of the argument put by the hon. Gentleman diminishes the House. There can be no future without addressing that argument candidly and honourably.
  I wonder whether the Prime Minister even knows what is in the Bill. If the Secretary of State wants to assure us about that, I am happy to take his assurance. I am familiar with great pieces of legislation. The Maastricht legislation was one of them, but, during its consideration, I recognised that the Government were in grave ignorance of the weight of the arguments that they were putting forward, even though they put them forward with honourable intent. Their assurances about who would interpret certain matters did not amount to anything in the end. I say that because I have witnessed the burden of work on a ministerial team across the United Kingdom.
  I did not mean to take up so much of the House's time. I believe that the Bill is flawed because it is myopic and looks at only one area of where we want to be or what

  205
  we are. It will not work in those terms, and the indignation of huge England—within it there are 48 million people—will ultimately turn and cause great trouble.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: At times during the past two days, I have been slightly depressed by the tone of the debate, but the contributions of the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and those of my hon. Friends the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) lifted my heart. They started to talk in the terms that people want to hear such a monumental proposal being discussed. Their contributions were made in the tone in which the Bill should be discussed, rather than that which has been adopted during much of the debate.
  I will not be a member of any Committee that may sit elsewhere than on the Floor of the House, unless, of course, I get sacked as a parliamentary private secretary in the meantime. I will miss the joys—they can exist—of the detailed debate on such matters as broadcasting, which is obviously one of the major constitutional issues left for the Scottish National party.
  Mr. Ancram: The Committee will be on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Connarty: We have still to find out whether that will be the case.
  I was struck by the briefing I received on broadcasting from one organisation. It stated:
  "Under Schedule 5 Head 10 Section 1 the Scotland Bill reserves the subject matter of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996 to the Parliament of Westminster. In addition under Schedule 5 Head 3 Section 9 the Bill reserves the subject matter of Part II of the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act to Westminster."
  As I have said, I will not have the joy of debating that in tremendous detail. I was interested to note the time given to broadcasting by the SNP. In another foray, SNP Members mentioned the Hypnotism Act 1952, the terms of which are also reserved. I wonder whether that is part of a plot by the SNP to catch the voters' eye through the use of broadcasting in order to hypnotise them to vote for independence. After all, the SNP is not likely to get independence through the Bill. It has been presented to the House to secure the Union.
  The blindness and the folly of the Conservative Government was to think that their centralist, rigid proposal for Unionism would in any way sustain them. They suffered at the ballot box, and we are now attempting to rescue the Conservative party as well as the Union from the political dustbin of history in Scotland.
  On 11 September—my mother's birthday—the Scottish people voted for devolution. It was the greatest birthday present she has ever had. The Scottish people did not vote for independence, but every time members of the SNP speak they echo the argument for independence, not the argument for devolution.
  I have been disappointed by the tone of the debate, starting with the contribution from the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Conservative spokesman on Scotland. He should not be treated as a proper shadow Secretary of State for Scotland because he does not
  206
  represent anywhere in Scotland. His loyalty is to the English Crown and he is supported by those who have fled Scotland; even today, we have heard contributions from them. They have not returned to Scotland and have sought a mandate from others, rather than from the Scottish people.
  I felt that at times the right hon. Gentleman was whimpering like a beaten animal. He did not bare his fangs and fight with the vigour that we have seen from him in the past when he has fought for something in which he truly believed.
  Some good, salient speeches have been made, which are relevant to the debate and which raised the discussion to the right level. I welcome the Bill, the terms of which are thorough and brave. I know that the Secretary of State fought very hard for its detail and that he is proud of the Bill. It is not the final word, however, on how a Scottish Parliament will run, but it is a bold statement of how it should start out.
  After listening to the debate so far, my great worry is that the Scottish Parliament should ever become like this place. The Bill represents a big, grand idea which would be nibbled into tatters if the joint opposition had their way. It should be devoured like a feast. It is a feast of heart and mind—BSE-free heart and mind—for the Scottish and the British people. Perhaps the politicians do not have the stomach for it. It is a big idea, which should not be nibbled at as it has been by Conservative Members on the Opposition Front Bench and Back Benches.
  The Bill will change the way in which British democracy has run for the past 300 years, but it is interesting to note that it is the small details on which people are picking. I wish that they would stand up and say with more heart that they genuinely want to make it work so that it can be used as a model to go forward. From the Opposition's contributions, however, everyone realises that, if they had the chance, they would nibble it to tatters. They would bring down that model rather than build it up.
  There are some things about the Bill that worry me and other Scots, although they may not be the same as those outlined by the Opposition. I heard the Secretary of State say that the First Minister would be appointed by the Queen. I hope that the Bill also makes it clear that the First Minister will be elected by the Parliament. I am also worried that the Executive will operate another system of patronage like that which works in the British Parliament. That could become subject to the dictatorship of one Minister and I would not welcome that.
  Mr. Grieve: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, but, looking at what is said in the clauses, it is quite clear that, as in this place, the sovereign's rights and duties in respect of the appointment of the First Minister are inextricably mixed. Obviously, no First Minister can hold office without the Parliament approving that, so the hon. Gentleman should not worry.
  I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about the mechanism according to which the presiding officer may appoint interim First Ministers if no one emerges out of the parliamentary morass of negotiation on proportional representation. That is extraordinary.
  Mr. Connarty: Some strange things happen in our democracy. I was the leader of a council where the

  207
  majority was not held by any party—it was balanced between two parties—and the majority was decided by cutting cards. I thought that was extremely quaint. I would certainly prefer an objective person to appoint an interim office holder who would chair the Executive under a system of proportional representation until the Parliament decided which of the people who had put themselves forward should be the First Minister. That is why it is important that the First Minister also takes into account the fact that, if we have a system of proportional representation without a simple majority, patronage must not result in dictatorship but must form part of the co-operative model that I hope will develop from the Scottish Parliament.
  I do have concerns. Although they are estimable men, the idea that the Donald and Alec show will continue into the Scottish Parliament does not fill me with excitement; nor does the Donald and Alec and Jim show. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has grown in stature for his work over many years in the House and on the Bill before us—indeed, I heard that he was recently described as "saintly" in one of the popular prints in Scotland. That may be so, but—with all due respect—I do not think that those men are necessarily the charismatic leaders that reflect the aspirations of the Scottish people for the next millennium.
  Although those men may do a good job in starting the process, there must be more, because the people of Scotland see this as a beginning. Although the process may be set off by the Bill and this Parliament, it must go somewhere this Parliament has not been for a long time—into giving people a feeling of democratic involvement in what happens in the chambers of government. That does not happen here. Events here are filtered, sometimes distorted and often trivialised by the media, so there is something wrong with the people's view of how we conduct government in the late part of the 20th century. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will give the Scottish people a new feeling of involvement; the English may want to look to the Scottish Parliament to see whether there are lessons on how to rearrange the workings of this Parliament. I have no fear of that; nor does any democrat in this nation or these islands.
  I have a question for members of the Scottish National party: they say that they will stand for the Scottish Parliament, but will they stand for both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments; or will they resign and stand for only one Chamber—the Scottish Parliament? I shall happily give way if any SNP Member would care to enlighten the Scottish people on this point. Will they stand only for the Scottish Parliament, or for both Parliaments? People are unclear about where the SNP's priorities lie. If SNP Members will not answer, the Scottish people may judge them as having some duplicity in mind.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Connarty: I will not give way at this moment—perhaps I shall do so in a few minutes, when the hon. Gentleman has been sitting down and listening to the debate for a bit longer.
  Mr. Gray: I was sitting down.
  Mr. Connarty: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was outside my field of vision. I am sure that we shall discuss
  208
  this issue at great length when we work on the armed forces scheme together next week. He may not have heard me, but I paid him a compliment during my remarks on the seriousness of the past three or four contributions to the debate.
  The electoral system is of fundamental importance, and people have called into question the status of Members of the Scottish Parliament who are elected on lists, as opposed to those who are elected to represent constituencies. I do not see that as a problem. Those elected on a list will be part of political parties, which I presume will employ a form of discipline and a code of conduct, just as we have a protocol on how to behave towards members of our own or other parties. I hope that MSPs will have the temerity to change the way we relate to our constituents and share the functions between those who are elected on the list and those elected by a constituency and, in so doing, demonstrate how, as parties and as a Parliament, they want to serve the people of Scotland instead of fighting about who are class A or class B Members.
  There are Tories in Scotland. That is the great thing about the proposals—the Labour Government are offering to give away power. I predict that we will be in government for the next 15 years—or possibly more if the Conservatives do not wake up and realise that they cannot represent the people with backward-looking principles—but we are willing to share our powers with the Conservatives in Scotland. Although there are few Scottish Conservatives willing to come out into the open, 500,000 people voted for the Conservative party in Scotland. Those people deserve a voice in the Scottish Parliament, and they will get it.
  Labour would have been short of an overall majority in the Parliament on the 1997 results. That is a good thing, because it means that we will have to share power with others and work towards something that will be more useful to the public. We should not reduce the Parliament to deals done in smoke-filled rooms or in any other cabal between one major party and one minor or less-than-a-majority party. I hope that we will look at ways of involving as many people and as many parties as possible in the principle and the process of government.
  Gender balance is important, despite its being chided and chastised by those who view it as mere political correctness. It is wrong to think that we can continue in the old ways. Conservative Members must recognise that they are now seen being deficient in not having enough Members of both genders. Women form the majority of our population, and many minority groups in our country deserve representation as well. I hope that that will be taken into account in the new Parliament.
  The Scottish Parliament is a new vehicle of government, but I am concerned that people will see it as another series of conflicts—another level on which people can fight each other. That need not happen, just because this place has deteriorated to the sort of yah-boo politics that has made us the laughing stock of the people of Britain and reduced our status in their eyes. Why can we not co-operate? We do it away from the Floor of the House, in Select Committees, so why are we afraid to show people that we can co-operate here in the Chamber? The Scottish Parliament must show the way. Why should local government be in conflict with the national Parliament? Why should the national Parliament see itself as taking powers away? Why should it not be the bulwark

  209
  of the power of local government, giving local government the power it requires and working to ensure that government functions at all levels? In that way, people's admiration for the democracy that we shall build will increase.
  Why should reserved areas be areas of conflict? Transport will be part of the UK remit because it is attached to an infrastructure that will extend into Scotland—although it currently does not appear to extend far north of Watford—but it should be a matter for co-operation between Ministries on both sides. Why is the prospect of the regions and the new regional development agencies talking face to face, developing new policies in co-operation with the Scottish development agency, so frightening that people want to raise it as a point of conflict? Labour will be in government here for 15 years or more. We can show how devolution can work and get the model running, so that it will not be easy for those who come after us to dismantle it and turn back to the old conflict method of government. The people have had enough—they have had a century of bad government based on conflict, rather than on trying to win consensus.
  Why do people say that the Scottish business community and the Scottish economy have something to fear from devolution? I spoke to Standard Life before the referendum and it has changed its position entirely. I went around, working with the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, talking to many companies that—albeit with some nervousness—looked forward to the Scottish Parliament as a partner they could talk to and develop with. If we create a new team within Scotland, it may be possible for us to set aside the them-and-us mentality that divides private sector and public sector. It is important that we take the chance to do that. The process is a dynamic one and it is possible that a new economic plan will emerge from Scotland to act as a model for other parts of the United Kingdom. The regional development agencies are already looking at what happens in respect of Scottish Enterprise.
  Nationalists say that we can be a nation only if we have a structure of politics and administration that makes us a nation, but we already are a nation. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that he liked reading the Bill and, although I know that he was being flippant, I know that he and his party will contribute the Committee stage so that we can perform our task well. I would rather read Kelman, Mcllvanney, Janice Galloway or even Irvine Welsh, or the poems of Tom Leonard or Norman McCaig. I do not see our nationhood as lying only in the Bill: it is to be found in the development of Scottish opera, Scottish arts, Scottish culture, Scottish education and Scottish law, even without our having a Scottish Parliament. This is just a logical response to that cultural nationhood. It is not a deficient form of nationhood because it is not an independent Parliament.
  The principles and practices of democratic government must move on, and I worry that many of the Opposition speeches have been ringing alarm bells rather than looking for ways to solve the problems. They have not seen the problems as gems and looked for solutions, as the private sector would, but as problems that they cannot overcome. This is not the end, but the beginning. No one should see this as the last statement about which powers will be reserved and which will be devolved. Other things will happen that will be natural and will follow from this.
  210
  My warning is as much to the Conservative party as to anyone else: no one should act as a brake on the process. If they do so, the Conservatives, who were rejected in 1997 because they tried to put a brake on the development of Scottish democracy through a Scottish Parliament, will be rejected for that Parliament and will appear only on lists.
  The dynamic of social and economic development eventually leads to political empowerment—and this measure is part of that process. I wish the Bill well. It is an opening and an opportunity which I hope the next Parliament will seize. I use the words of Jim Morrison of The Doors, who said that we should go through the opening and
  "break on through to the other side".
  That is where there is a new democracy and a new future for the people of Scotland and Britain.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall attempt to be extremely brief.
  My constituents did not have the benefit of the referendum, although this measure affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have no constitutional convention requiring constitutional matters to be subjected to a referendum, but we do have a constitutional convention that such matters should be taken on the Floor of the House. The fact that we are to take the Bill on the Floor of the House is very important, as it will give my constituents, who were denied their voice in the referendum on a matter affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, the right, through me, to express their reservations about the Bill's detail as it goes through the House.
  The Bill contains financial uncertainties. The fact that the funding of the Scottish Parliament—the disbursement of its own funds—is not to be placed on a statutory basis gives rise to persistent uncertainty that will lead to argument year after year. Every time that Opposition Members have raised the problems associated with that subject, we have been told that there will be an abundance of good will, that this will be a new Parliament with new, consensual politics—a Parliament for the new Jerusalem. We have heard of children tripping about in the aisles, and of how Members will agree and always find a way forward.
  An abundance of good will has been on display. Those of us more familiar with traditional politics were no doubt revolted by the community love fest displayed across the Floor of the House yesterday between the now-sainted Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The sainted Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that he could read his mind, and the hon. Gentleman agreed. I have known the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan for the past 20 years, and while there may be a great display of good will across the House, I know that one of the two parties to the love fest is being taken for a ride. I do not believe for one moment that it is the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
  What Labour Members have failed to realise about the Bill's nature and its reliance on good will—there is even to be an electoral system maximising the requirement for good will—is that one of the parties to the arrangement is wholly opposed to the Bill as it stands. I agree that we

  211
  have seen a healthy show of support for the Bill, but one of the parties wants something quite different in terms of the principle behind the Bill, and sees it as a mere stepping stone on the way.
  That party has made it clear that every opportunity will be taken to push the new Parliament into becoming a beast that it was never designed to be. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is on record recently in The Scotsman as saying that it is work in progress, and that the Scottish National party will finish the job. Arrangements that rely on good will be put in great jeopardy.
  Mr. Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me when my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) changed his story? I have heard him on many occasions both before and after the referendum on 11 September telling people that that was exactly what he wanted to do, but the people of Scotland still voted for the package of reforms on 11 September.
  Mr. Swayne: I accept entirely that the people of Scotland have voted for a Parliament as outlined in the White Paper. What I wish to see, and will certainly argue for in Committee, is certainty in the arrangements, so that they rely less on good will and more on detailed prescriptions laid out in the legislation. The arrangements as described will maximise the opportunities for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his friends to create something quite different, for which the people of Scotland did not vote. If the people of Scotland choose independence, that is their right, but I should hate them to arrive there by mistake.
  Last night, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) raised some pertinent points relating to the electoral arrangements to be put in place by the Bill, only to be challenged by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who said that it was precisely because the people of Glasgow will continually vote Labour that arrangements had to be set up to gerrymander the system to overcome that. That sums up the nonsense of the electoral system that is being set up for the purpose of the Scottish Parliament.
  The 20 Members who will be elected as part of the regional list will represent the most pernicious form of democracy—indeed, it is not democracy. Those people will owe more to their selection by party managers than to votes cast by voters. They will inevitably become preoccupied with the priorities of the party managers rather than those of the voters.
  Anyone who has seen the system in operation in Europe will have been able to see the results clearly. If someone goes to Germany, he will be amazed by the number of people—ordinary people on the street or business men—who express deep anxiety about, if not open hostility to, economic and monetary union. But if he speaks to any member of the political cast—any elected politician—he will find that that feeling is absent; they have no such reservations.
  212
  How has that division arisen between the voters and those whom they have elected? It has arisen precisely because of the electoral system of the closed party list—the system that the Bill wishes to put in place. Those elected owe their election to party managers, not voters.
  Mr. Davidson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for repeating many of the points that I raised last night. Given that the Conservative party is unlikely to win any seats at the Scottish elections under the first-past-the-post system, will he tell us what thought the Conservative party has given to the way in which the difficulties could be overcome?
  Mr. Swayne: As I have always understood it, the Conservative party lives and dies by the first-past-the-post system. There has been no carping among Conservative Members about the number of seats that we failed to win in Scotland. We have accepted the judgment of the voters, and we are quite prepared to live by it. It is a matter of principle rather than party advantage.
  We have heard much nonsense spoken about how Members of the Scottish Parliament will be all the better for not having constituency preoccupations, and will be freer to take a fairer-minded, objective view on many issues. By their very nature, the people elected as a result of having served the party will be the worst form of toadies.
  Mr. Salmond: Speaking of that, I believe that I have the solution to the hon. Gentleman's problems. The Scottish National party, the Liberals and the Labour party believe in proportional representation, and the Conservative party believes in first-past-the-post. If the Scottish Conservatives stand only for the first-pastthe-post component of the new electoral system, we can all have what we want. Just do not put up members for the party list; you can stand for the first-past-the-post component, and we shall stand for the PR component.
  Mr. Swayne: The difficulty arises from the arrangements. If the electoral system is arranged in that way, we have no alternative but to play by the rules that have been instituted. I am arguing that such an arrangement should not be allowed, because of its consequences. We wish to avoid in our political culture following the example of Germany, where representatives have no care for the preoccupation of the voters who elected them. The Scottish Parliament is in great danger of beginning its life with a huge democratic deficit.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You took me by surprise; I did not expect to be called this time.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) said, we are in danger of repeating arguments that have been used before. I would go a stage further: given that we have already had the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill and the debate on the White Paper, there is a danger that each of us individually might end up using arguments that we ourselves have used before.
  I pay special tribute to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He reminded me of Christmas television. I started getting a feeling of familiarity, then a

  213
  sense of déjà vu. Then I noticed some things getting outdated, and suddenly I realised that this was a programme that I had watched before, and that it was being repeated in its entirety. To be fair, all participants in the debate are in danger of repetition, but that should not lead us to become blas" about the momentous significance of what we are discussing.
  If—as I believe will be the case—history books regard 1997 as a watershed, one of the supreme reasons will be because it will be seen as the start of a major process of constitutional change. The Scottish Parliament will be regarded as being at the forefront: a trail-blazer, a pace-setter for a system of constitutional change.
  That system will include the national assembly for Wales and the arrangements that we shall make for London. It may include a process of devolution to English regions or, as some people suggest, perhaps a move towards a federalised system. It will include the alterations to the other place, which one is so pleased to see getting started today. Above all, I believe that everyone in the House hopes that constitutional arrangements will be made in Northern Ireland that can at last bring settled peace to that part of Britain.
  The building in which we are meeting, in its history, its structure and its art, enshrines a steady progress of devolution of power, initially from an elite—from the monarch to the Lords, then from the monarch and Lords to the Commons, and then from a Commons that largely represented a fairly small oligarchy to a Commons that represents the whole population. I believe that the Scottish Parliament will have a proper place in that progress of devolution of power to the people.
  I have said previously in the House that there is a proper place in politics for confrontation and a proper place for working together and for consensus. I believe that, above all, when we consider constitutional matters, we should seek to work with a consensus. I therefore welcome, in so far as we have seen it occur, movement by the Conservative party to recognise the result of the referendum.
  I say "in so far as we have seen it occur": when one reads the motion on the Order Paper today, which effectively says that the Conservatives recognise the result of the referendum, but therefore they will vote against it, one might be tempted to accuse them of schizophrenia, if that did not imply that the Conservative party had a collective mind, which I doubt.
  However, I believe that the movements that the Conservatives have made, in so far as they have made them, have been forced by the fact that they see that the result is very decisive. Seventy-five per cent. of the Scottish population voted in favour of a Scottish Parliament.
  Indeed, I gained an impression from the Aberdeen results that that figure probably underestimates the strength of support. In Aberdeen, we noticed that, in the areas with the strongest no votes, there were high votes, and in the areas with a very high percentage of yes votes, there were low votes. I therefore believe that there was some complacency among some supporters of devolution. Probably, real support runs higher than 75 per cent. In any event, it is overwhelming.
  I strongly hope that the Conservative party in this place, and especially in the other place, will recognise that it would be monstrous for it to try to obstruct the Bill's
  214
  progress. I am glad that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) recognised that negotiations through the usual channels had meant that the Government had agreed to take this matter on the Floor of the House. I recognise that that involved the co-operation of the Conservatives, and I welcome that fact. I welcome every sign that they are moving towards trying to make constructive proposals, not destructive ones.
  At the weekend, I was disappointed to hear the trivial comments of Mr. Raymond Robertson on the costs of the Parliament. Of course we want the Parliament to be cost-effective, but the important thing is that it should be effective, so the money should be spent to make it effective.
  The Parliament's first major challenge will be to make itself effective. To meet that challenge, it will be important for us to seek good examples from Parliaments in Westminster and elsewhere internationally, but we should also be innovative. I hope that we shall not just follow but will set examples.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, there will be proportional representation and a more consensual style of politics. There are lessons there that could be learned in this place. I think especially of sometimes working on consensus, not simply on conflict.
  There is also the question whether proportional representation is desirable. I am not persuaded that it should be used in this Chamber, although that will be a matter to be debated, and one to be put to a referendum later in this Parliament. I would support the replacement of the other place with an assembly elected by proportional representation.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if it proves difficult to achieve consensus in the Parliament under a proportional representation system, resulting in constantly shifting coalitions and an inability to produce a First Minister—the subject of one of the central clauses in the Bill—the Scots electorate will enjoy the luxury of politics while depending ultimately for continuity in government on what goes on in this House under the first-past-the-post system? It will be weak government unless that consensus can be achieved.
  Mr. Savidge: Certain proportional representation systems can produce weak government. The excessively proportional system in Israel, with a great multiplicity of parties, has that effect. The system that we are adopting, which combines two systems, has shown itself far more stable in countries where it has been used.
  I should like the Scottish Parliament to set an example to this Parliament by being representative in the sense of containing balanced numbers of women and men. That issue was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. That issue must be tackled, either by the legislation itself or by each of our parties doing all that it can to ensure proper representation.
  I think that all-women short lists are an imperfect system, but I have stood at two general elections and one by-election and found, not short lists, but all-men long lists on each occasion. What is more, every candidate for the other parties was also a man. I am certain that that is wrong. It is extraordinary that the media speak so often

  215
  of how many women there are in the House; instead, they should be reminding people that there are only one third as many women in the House as there should be truly to reflect the make-up of the population. I certainly hope that there will be a proper balance in the Scottish Parliament, and that that will spread to Westminster as well.
  Scotland can set an example in other areas, too—modernisation, for one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South pointed out. Fixed-term Parliaments for this House as well as for Scotland should also be considered.
  I also hope that Scotland can set an example to the rest of the UK in another respect. Not much reference has been made to the second question in the referendum, but I for one was pleased by the strong vote for tax-varying powers. I hope that electorates can come to believe again that there is a place for progressive direct taxation in building a civilised, humane society.
  There is, however, one consequence of the setting up of the Scottish Parliament that I do not want to occur in this place. It has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Devizes, by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and various other Conservative Members, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  I do not want a reduction in the powers of Scottish Members who remain in this House, although I completely accept that their numbers should be reduced. I have four things to say about the West Lothian question. First, the West Lothian answer is the fact that 79.6 per cent. of people voted in favour of a Scottish Parliament. I sometimes think that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow should pay more attention to that fact.
  Secondly, there is what we in Scotland sometimes call the Westminster question. The West Lothian question which has caused such terrible consternation on the Conservative Benches states that Scottish Members might have a peripheral influence on some issues relating only to England. For 18 years in Scotland, however, every single issue was controlled by a party that was rejected by the people of Scotland. In the end, the Conservatives in Scotland had no MEPs and were wiped off the electoral map in the councils which they themselves had gerrymandered. Furthermore, they ended up with no Members of Parliament—
  Mr. Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling, but does he not understand that the principle of government introduced by the Union of 1707 meant that I, as Member of Parliament for Beaconsfield, have as much interest in Caithness as the Member of Parliament for Caithness has in Beaconsfield? It is the hon. Gentleman's party which has decided to break that arrangement by setting up a separate Scottish Parliament. As I know from my own constituency, that will lead to grave objections to Scottish Members of Parliament interfering in matters of purely English concern.
  Mr. Savidge: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise what we have been saying? Our affairs were not being interfered in: they were being totally controlled.
  Mr. Swinney: Does the hon. Gentleman recall, as I do, that the poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year before
  216
  it was introduced in England, primarily by English Members of the UK Parliament voting to impose it on Scotland against the votes of Scottish Members? When it was implemented a year later in England, there was an enormous explosion of anger; and English Members of Parliament, who were supposedly so concerned for Caithness and other parts of Scotland, suddenly realised the enormity of the poll tax, and decided that they did not want it in Beaconsfield or other parts of England.
  Mr. Savidge: I find the idea of English Conservative Members being so concerned about Scotland about as credible as the story we heard earlier about how the people of North Wiltshire crowd their MP' s surgeries to ask about Scottish education and Scottish health.
  My next point concerns the former suggestion that there would always be a Tory majority in England, so that my party could govern only by the Scots delivering Labour a majority in the British Parliament. That problem has been resolved, and I pay credit to the Conservatives for the major part that they have played in that resolution by rendering themselves a minority party in England. Indeed, they have done much to keep things that way over the past seven months.
  My last point about the West Lothian question is that there is always the solution of English devolution. If there is a strong desire for it, it can be met either in the form of an English Parliament—for those who want a federal solution—or, as my party would favour, in the form of devolution to the English regions.
  I have been gratified by the swift and total fulfilment of John Smith's unfinished business. This Labour Government have kept their promises. I pay tribute to the Scottish Office, to Ministers and to staff for that. Most of all, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can do so without being accused of sycophancy, now that he has said that he is to go to the Scottish Parliament and I have made it clear to my constituents that I intend to stay at Westminster.
  Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Devizes said, that does not show a lack of commitment to the Scottish Parliament. I will stay here because I said when I was selected that there was such a wealth of talent among those wanting to go to the Scottish Parliament that I should stay in this Parliament.
  There may be Conservative Members who find the idea of a wealth of talent among their candidates rather unlikely. Indeed, I understand that you have appointed a talent spotter in Scotland to look for people of youth and intellectual vigour to stand for the Scottish Parliament. You have appointed Mr. Bill Walker to be your talent spotter—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Several times this evening, hon. Members have used the words "you" and "your". I do not want to interrupt each time to bring them to order, but I should be grateful if Members remembered to use proper parliamentary language.
  Mr. Savidge: I sincerely apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I was paying tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland, although perhaps in less flamboyant terms than those used by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow,

  217
  Pollok (Mr. Davidson). I have admired my right hon. Friend for more than 30 years, ever since I first saw him debating at Aberdeen university as a young MP. His achievements during the past year have earned him the vast respect of Members throughout the House. If, as I believe it will, the Scottish Parliament finds a place in history, that will be part of the place in history that my right hon. Friend himself deserves.
  I remember a summer of discontent in 1996, when there was some confusion over the referendum and other aspects of policy. Our opponents accused us of conspiracies and worse, and our friends felt a sense of distrust. In the light of some of the problems that we have faced up to in the past few weeks, I hope that it will be recognised that we have answered all those fears. I trust that our opponents—at least, our sensible opponents—will recognise that in Scotland the Government have proved that they can be trusted, and that they keep their promises.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: My colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and I, together with many other right hon. and hon. Members, welcome the provisions of the Bill, principally because it will improve the quality of democracy that we enjoy in Scotland, it will make decision making more accountable to Scottish people, and it will ensure that decision making takes place at the appropriate level.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said yesterday,
  "Home rule allows us an opportunity to right the wrongs of Scottish misgovernment and to renew and replenish Scottish democracy."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 49.]
  For those of us from north of the border, this is the starting point, but the effects run wider. As the Secretary of State put it yesterday,
  "The Bill will be welcomed by democrats everywhere. It is not simply about Scotland."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 19.]
  As a federalist—someone committed to the United Kingdom—I hope that this is the first of many Bills that will be welcomed by democrats everywhere, and renew and replenish democracy everywhere.
  Like the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), I believe that it is appropriate to pay tribute, without turning it into some Tom Ferrie Radio Scotland dedication, to the many people who, over the years, have contributed to the Bill. The Government should be commended for the quality of the Bill that they have produced. We should pay tribute to the participants in the referendum campaign and to the Scottish people—not least to those who endorsed the yes, yes outcome, but also to the many thousands involved in the convention before that and to the members of many other groups who have agitated for change over many years.
  Despite all the conclusive evidence of the Bill's fulfilling the settled will of the Scottish people, there are still hon. Members who are determined to argue against it. We hear strange noises from the Conservative Benches, as Opposition Members have been outed as closet devolutionists. We heard the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) say that the Conservatives
  "do not seek to oppose the principle of the proposals"—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 35.]
  218
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said:
  "I have never been opposed to the principle of devolution."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 76.]
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) stated:
  "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."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 89.]
  Finally, we heard the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) say:
  "I wish to make it clear … that I do not oppose the principle of devolution."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 96.]
  Onlookers might think that here we have a rare outbreak of unanimity, and that across the Chamber there will be agreement about the Bill, but, despite the mood music, there has been a grinding and gnashing of teeth. Many of the attacks yesterday and today were as relevant to modern Scotland as the Bay City Rollers and their tartan flares. In particular, there have been several mentions of the West Lothian question. Constitutional theology is taken to extremes by many hon. Members.
  Far more important, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, is the Westminster question. Research shows, as anybody can quickly find out, that the times when Scottish Members of Parliament have made the difference and influenced the outcome of English measures has been limited to a few months in the past 50 years in this place, whereas the many occasions when English Members of Parliament have influenced the outcome of Scottish measures are sadly forgotten.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is factually wrong with regard to the periods 1974–79 and 1964–66.
  Mr. Moore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, although I do not agree with it. If he looks at the voting during those periods and at the research, he will see that the times when the votes of Scottish Members have counted are limited to a number of months.
  Mr. Dalyell: Whose research?
  Mr. Moore: Mine and that of others outside the House, which I will be happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
  Conservative Members say that the Bill is misunderstood by their constituents. What are they doing to overcome that? If we are to believe that all Conservative Members are now devolutionists, we should challenge them to go out and explain their new confidence in devolution and argue positively for change in England to create a modern, dynamic United Kingdom.
  We hear much discussion about funding, the Barnett formula and the complaints that constituents in England bring about the proposal. Those arguments will continue, whatever the structures of government across the United Kingdom. English Members, especially Conservatives, should be explaining and debating with their constituents the differences within England, as much as the differences between Scotland and England.
  We hear, too, about the role of Members of Parliament. The decision not to stand for the Scottish Parliament is criticised. I do not accept that. The proposals in the Bill

  219
  make the prospect of being a Member of the Scottish Parliament a very attractive option, but an on-going presence in the United Kingdom Parliament is still extremely important. Surely the most important aspect of the new politics and the new way of governing ourselves in Scotland is that as many people as possible should be drawn into the process.
  My constituency has recently closed the long list for applicants for the nomination to be the Scottish Liberal Democrat candidate. More than a dozen people have applied for that nomination. They include business men and women, industrialists, health service workers, various voluntary sector workers—a broad section of Scottish society. Women represent more than a third of those who applied for selection. There are no Members of Parliament, past or present, on the list. Canon Wright, who chaired the convention, expressed his view that there should be a trickle of Scottish Members going to the Scottish Parliament, not a torrent. I heartily endorse that sentiment.
  There are some strange factors in the Bill, with which we should deal. It seems crazy that the dual mandate is still tolerated and is not explicitly ruled out. Anybody seeking representation in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster could not reasonably expect a Member of Parliament also to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
  Why is there no provision in the Bill to ensure that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not apply to the provisions and to the procedures of parties selecting their candidates? The position of the Equal Opportunities Commission is a further anomaly. Although it is primarily responsible for employment matters, which are reserved, it also has interests in education, which are devolved. We must hope that the Government will clarify the position as the Bill progresses. Clearly, women and other groups must be attracted to the Parliament, and no obstacle put in their way.
  I am particularly pleased that since the referendum result, people in business are waking up to the possibilities of the Scottish Parliament and realising the important contribution that they must make. I speak as a Scottish chartered accountant and someone who benefited from the fact that my employers before the election, Coopers and Lybrand, gave me substantial support and understanding when I stood for the Westminster Parliament.
  I welcome the fact that those great friends of devolution, Standard Life and the Bank of Scotland, have recently announced that they, too, will allow their employees to stand. The Bank of Scotland's press release of 9 January states:
  "Aspiring politicians within Bank of Scotland will now be able to take a career break to stand for election following the introduction of the Bank's Parliamentary Leave Scheme."
  From Standard Life we hear that
  "Standard Life believes that the quality of the members of the Scottish Parliament will be crucial to the success of that Parliament. As a practical example of its commitment to Devolution, Standard Life will now offer career breaks to any employees who wish to stand for the new Parliament."
  Those two financial institutions are not the be-all and end-all of Scottish business; nor should they be the only ones that have representatives in the Scottish Parliament.
  220
  Nevertheless, I welcome that change. If the Conservative party needs a benchmark of how out of touch it has become since the election and especially since the referendum, it should speak to some of its former soulmates in the business community.
  Times have indeed moved on. Key evidence of that comes from my own area in the borders. In the referendum, people backed the White Paper proposals on both counts, which was a major change from the provisions of 1979. I feel that there were two main reasons for that. First, there was the effect of 18 years of Conservative Government. Secondly, there was proportional representation. No matter what system we have, small rural areas will never be able completely to overcome the effect of urban weight. With PR, however, the effects of central belt domination are hugely and even completely reduced. Indeed, I believe that PR and the tax-varying powers of the Bill are two of its key features and provisions that make it commendable and acceptable to my constituents.
  All Scotland has been crying out for change over many years. It is important that the House does not delay further that call for change. The Bill is a huge step forward towards delivering it and I hope that it will be successful.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for enabling me to make a short contribution to the debate. I support the Bill on behalf of my constituents, who, as is consistent with their long-held aspirations, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional change at the general election on 1 May 1997. In so doing, they contributed to the election of a Labour Government, who enjoy an unprecedented majority and who were elected partly on a platform of constitutional change. Devolution for Scotland, Wales and the English regions is but part of that manifesto.
  It is worth while taking a moment or two to reflect on why the people of Kilmarnock and Loudoun and the rest of the United Kingdom endorsed constitutional change at the general election. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland reminded us that at the heart of the devolution argument lay a history of political decision making that was in the hands of politicians who commanded no support from Scotland. That has been a theme that has run through the contributions of all but Conservative Members during the debate. What my right hon. Friend said is true, but I suspect that the Scots could have lived with the democratic anomaly that I have described. That product of the asymmetrical constitution of the United Kingdom was an anomaly which gave a majority of English Members the power to make decisions that affected only distinctly Scottish interests. Yet neither they nor their electorates had to live with those decisions. If they had not imposed on Scotland time after time, especially in terms of health, education and local government, measures that were wasteful of our scarce resources and which were directly at odds with the hopes and aspirations of the Scottish people, things might have been different.
  It was the failure of the constitutional status quo in the hands of certain people to deliver good government which offended the Scottish peoples, not the constitutional status quo itself. While that history created in Scotland a longing for constitutional change

  221
  to ensure that the experiences of the past 18 years would never be repeated, for other, but related, reasons the electorate of the United Kingdom were becoming more and more disaffected with politics and politicians.
  It is the common desire of the United Kingdom electorate that there should be greater openness, greater representativeness and greater accountability from its democratic institutions. Indeed, that is what the electorate voted for on 1 May. They wanted a package of constitutional reforms to modernise and improve the government of the United Kingdom, to make it more responsive to the people and so to create institutions that would be close to their needs and concerns while recognising the diversity of the communities that make up this great Union.
  In my opinion, the people knew what they were voting for on 1 May. They knew also that they would have to live with new anomalies while the process of constitutional reform was worked through, and perhaps thereafter. After all, the electorate are no strangers to constitutional anomalies or asymmetry. They have lived with them for generations. Like the Scots, they will live with them if they enjoy good government, and they expect their politicians to do likewise. That, in my submission, is the answer to what is called the West Lothian question.
  The people of the United Kingdom wanted a Government with the courage to tackle the problems that were being generated by the constitutional situation, and they secured one who are doing just that. Part of the Government's clear mandate was to consult the Scottish and Welsh people by referendums on their desire for devolution and, for the Scots, to deliver them a Parliament with both legislative and tax-varying powers if that was their desire. That part of the process is almost complete and the other parts of a comprehensive process of constitutional reform are under way.
  When what was begun is complete, the task of constitutional evolution will be far from over. The Labour Government's mandate for constitutional change is a continuing one and will end only when we have in place a modern Government who provide greater democracy for all the people of the United Kingdom.
  I shall turn for a few minutes to the central point of the debate. In my view, democracy, accountability and accessibility are the underlying principles of the Bill. It is a complex and innovative piece of legislation that follows on from a White Paper that was remarkable in its clarity.
  Yesterday the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) described the Bill as
  "so badly drafted … that it is for us as Conservatives—the one party that stood against devolution—to try … for the sake of the United Kingdom, to make the proposals work."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 35.]
  That comment generated much mirth in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but, lest he be in any doubt, I should explain that the House was not laughing with him on that occasion.
  Having heard that trailer, and shared the view of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the draftsmanship of the Bill, I waited for the development of the theme that had been introduced. What were the areas of ambiguity?
  222
  What proposed measures had particular "draconian" and "frightening" consequences "on individual rights"? What proposed measures in the Bill are "incomprehensible"? No development of the right hon. Gentleman's theme has been forthcoming.
  It seems that the right hon. Gentleman, newly emboldened since he and the Conservative party no longer fear reform of the constitution, and newly, if somewhat belatedly, listening in responsive mood—as he and his party are not now seeking to delay or destroy the Bill—was unable entirely to disengage himself from his Cassandra-like past. He could not and cannot support his extravagant claims with any hard evidence.
  Thinking that the right hon. Gentleman may have had a point or points that he was holding up his sleeve for consideration of the Bill in Committee, and knowing from some of his hon. Friends' contributions to the debate how heavily they had relied on the briefing from the Law Society of Scotland. I sought a copy of that document to ascertain whether there was a catalogue of criticism of drafting or good examples of ambiguity or incomprehensibility therein. No such luck, unfortunately, for the right hon. Gentleman.
  In the second paragraph of the letter that we have all received, the author, a much respected and experienced lobbyist, representing the views of the Law Society of Scotland, stated:
  "The Society commends the Government for producing a Bill which is, by and large comprehensive, well structured and clear in its terms."
  Thereafter the society lists a modest number of questions and observations, mostly requiring clarification of the most technical parts of the Bill. Contrast that with the society's trenchant and comprehensive criticism of the 1970s Bill, which it attacked root and branch, and the House has some appropriate measure of the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team in producing the Bill.
  I had intended to develop some themes relating to the potential of this Parliament, but I must forgo the opportunity given that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. However, there are one or two things that I wish to say before concluding. I wish to return to my exchange with the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), during which the hon. Lady referred to clauses 83 to 85, which she criticised for their failure to further the undertaking in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper. I suggested that she was barking up the wrong clauses and suggested that she would find the answer in clause 23. I was wrong because clause 23 does not provide the answer. I am slightly embarrassed because both of us are members of the Scottish Bar and we were both wrong. Clauses 83 to 85 are totally irrelevant to the issue that she was addressing in relation to paragraph 2.11.2. The difference is between the power of the Parliament to require people to attend before it, and the intention in the White Paper that the Parliament would have the power to invite people to attend before it. That is the distinction. I misled myself slightly after reading the notes in the margin on clause 23. I returned to that merely to clarify and to say that I was wrong.

  223
  I welcome the Bill and the Parliament that will come from it because of the opportunity that it will generate to reform the Scottish legal system. During her short speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said:
  "I am also concerned about the protection of the Scottish legal system."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 109.]
  Like the right hon. Member for Devizes, she failed to develop that theme and say why she has such concern for the Scottish legal system. Since devolution became a probability with the election of a Labour Government, she is the only Scottish lawyer whom I have met who is not looking forward to an enhanced income from the introduction of a Scottish Parliament. I look forward to a Scottish Parliament because of the opportunity that it will generate to develop Scots law—I am no longer a practising member of the Scottish Bar—particularly in areas where it is much needed.
  After the Orkney inquiry, I was involved in an advisory capacity with the Scottish Office, in relation to amending child law. After our work had been done, we came together, with a representative of the Scottish Law Commission. We were all in agreement—civil servants, advisers, those who were being consulted in the Scottish Law Commission—that we needed far more time and a far more comprehensive Children Act to address the needs of Scottish children. However, there just was not enough parliamentary time. If parliamentary time could not be found from that available to Scotland to address the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society—our children—there is something fundamentally wrong with the system of legislation in Scotland.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne).
  I think it was the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) who spoke earlier about the ability of hon. Members to split hairs. When I listened to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun developing the reasons why he and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) were wrong in their exchanges about broadcasting, I felt that he had something to learn from the hon. Member for Midlothian. I am sure that that issue will be talked about when we read the Official Report tomorrow.
  Much of this debate and the debate on the referendum, and much of what the Secretary of State said yesterday, has been about trusting the people. The greatest fault line lies between the Conservatives and everybody else in the House who is quite prepared to allow the people to decide. We in the SNP are perfectly happy to allow the people of Scotland to decide their constitutional future. We have no wish to force our constitutional options down the throats of the Scottish people. We only want them to vote for them at the available opportunities. It will be up to the people of Scotland to decide exactly how much or how little constitutional change they undertake. That is welcome.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said earlier that the SNP came to the debate interested only in making the Parliament fail. I could not disagree more,
  224
  because any analysis of Scottish history will show that when Scotland becomes steeped in failure it tends not to move ahead terribly far; that we can look among ourselves for the reasons of failure; and that we do not take on the outward dynamics of the development of a community.
  I want to ensure that the devolved Parliament is successful, because out of that success and the strengthening of that Parliament will come a greater self-confidence in Scotland. I certainly hope that there will be a mood in Scotland that independence is the way forward for Scotland as a result of this package of devolution. The SNP has every interest in making devolution work in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
  I wish to make two substantive points in relation to fiscal powers and the concordats, which were talked about yesterday, but I shall concentrate first on funding the Scottish Parliament, because the supposed haemorrhage of resources that will come from the Treasury to the Scottish Parliament once the English backlash takes full effect has been a recurring issue. I have paraphrased many long arguments. The Treasury Select Committee had a go at this subject before the turn of the year. It tried to blow away some of the cobwebs of the debate on the Barnett formula.
  As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said earlier, when the Select Committee started to talk about the issue, it wanted to discuss something else—the needs of Scotland rather than the formula that guarantees our funding. It is essential that we ensure that we are talking about the right subject when engaged in these discussions, because the Select Committee went on to produce a half-baked analysis based on no evidence. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Gordon dissociate himself from it on 22 December 1997.
  Many points are raised by the Treasury analysis, but I draw one quote to the attention of the House. It comes from Professor Heald of the university of Aberdeen, who gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on 13 November. He talked about the quest to get information about public expenditure in England, and comparative figures and information about Scotland. He said that the Committee was keen to get
  "regional data for English regions—particularly for the north. We have largely failed in that quest. If you look at the numbers in the statistical supplement, what you will see are numbers for English regions, a huge blob of the unallocated expenditure. One of the problems is people sometimes compare the north with Scotland and Wales without adding anything from the unallocated blob, but also we have no idea where that goes."
  That is a central point on which many people have to reflect when they allege that Scotland benefits from disproportionate public expenditure. Huge unidentified sums of public money are spent by the Kingdom Government, which do not go to many parts of the United Kingdom other than the south-east of England. The analysis that is done of public expenditure is far from transparent, so some of the comments made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) about disproportionate spending are way off the mark. When one looks at the Government's analysis of Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland for 1995–96, the last year for which information was published, and takes into account issues such as Scotland's share of the public sector deficit, and takes true account of oil revenues and privatisation proceeds for Scotland, precious little of a deficit is left.

  225
  I made a point yesterday, during an intervention, that Her Majesty's Treasury has told us since 1979 that Scotland contributed £27 billion more to the United Kingdom than we received in services. In the time since the election, no Minister has disproved those Treasury answers. That information is based on Government assumptions and assessment. Those are important points on which to reflect in the debate.
  I now move on to fiscal autonomy, a subject to which we shall return in Committee. I make a positive suggestion about how the debate about financing the Scottish Parliament can be strengthened. I propose that the Scottish consolidated fund benefits from all the revenue that is raised in Scotland and from Scotland's share of the revenue generated by the Scottish continental shelf, and that the Scottish Executive makes a payment to Westminster in respect of the reserved powers for which the Scottish people benefit in terms of the support that is offered. That will allow us to guarantee and secure much greater transparency in public finances in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It will also apply much greater rigour and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament in accounting for public funds. Under the proposed arrangements, the Scottish Parliament will have much less discretion over fiscal matters than any Scottish local authority. The Bill must be strengthened in that respect to assist accountability and responsibility.
  I should like to raise one other issue, but I also want to ensure that some Labour Members who have waited a long time to contribute—they are already asking me to sit down—have a chance to speak. I ask them to let me make my final point—they will enjoy it. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made an interesting contribution, suggesting that there was a great deal of detail behind the Bill that we were not hearing about. To an extent, I have some sympathy with him.
  Mr. Salmond: He has just arrived.
  Mr. Swinney: Right on cue. I am glad that he is here to hear this. I received a copy of a Scottish Office document that purports to be a concordat between the Scottish Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture to guide relations after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to it yesterday. My best lines are always stolen by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. He sought reassurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) about the status of the concordat. The Minister responded:
  "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."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 116.]
  I went home last night feeling comfortable about that. This morning, I re-read the document that I had received. It says:
  "it is clear that concordats will not come fully into operation until the devolved administration is up and running. However, we see considerable advantage in getting the groundwork established well before then and, indeed, operating a period of shadow-running in order to iron out any kinks."
  We are left somewhat bewildered by the details of the note and the Minister's comments last night. I hope that the Minister who replies tonight will take the opportunity
  226
  to clarify the status of the concordats and whether there will be any shadow running to iron out the kinks. We also need to know how many concordats are in existence, how many more we can expect to read about—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about the kinks?
  Mr. Swinney: And how many kinks are left? If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) can quote from The Doors, I can quote from The Kinks. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that I shall sit down shortly.
  We have given the details of some of our concerns about the Bill. When we come to vote on the details, particularly in relation to the concordats, we need to know what other information and details lurk behind the Bill. Those are important issues. I hope that the Minister will respond to them.
  8.32 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I must take issue with those in the media who have said that Members of Parliament who wish to stay here rather than go to the Scottish Parliament want to do so because of the comfort of the green Benches. I have been sitting here since 3.30. They should try it.
  Some Conservative Members have made the extraordinary claim that Scottish Members who remain at Westminster, if their voters allow them to do so, will have almost nothing to do. I invite them to attend my surgery any day. I frequently have housing cases, although that is really a matter for the local authority. I am sure that when we have a Scottish Parliament, people will still come to my surgery and to the surgery of the Member of the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. McAllion: And the European one.
  Mrs. Fyfe: And the European one.
  Schools are an issue in Glasgow at the moment, but they are not usually, because people are broadly satisfied with how schools are run. There will still be immigration and nationality and social security issues—the Child Support Agency alone could keep me going—as well as foreign affairs and international development. As far as I can see, foxes will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. That may be a relief to some.
  I was interested to see an exclusive in The Herald today saying that Scottish political history would soon be made, with all four major parties forming a committee together for the first time to co-operate on drafting rules for the workings of the Scottish Parliament. I welcome that, but I am concerned about one or two aspects. No one on the list provided by the journalist,. Mr. Murray Ritchie, has had any deep involvement in parliamentary procedures, although of course my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, who will chair the committee, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), as Members of Parliament, have a working knowledge of what is allowed and what is not allowed here. However, there is no one who has been deeply involved in creating procedure. I make that point not because I want the Scottish Parliament to copy procedures

  227
  here—emphatically not—but because I want the committee to be aware of the pitfalls, so that we have a properly working democratic Parliament.
  Although no women are listed in Mr. Ritchie's article among the prominent citizens to take part in the committee, I am glad to welcome a number of outstanding women who will be involved, including Esther Roberton, Joyce McMillan and Alice Brown, who can contribute a great deal. I welcome them not just because they are talented women who can contribute to the committee. Long after the committee has done its work and passed into history, the rules will be in place for the workings of the Scottish Parliament. Now I can be sure that women's voices will be heard on that vital subject before the rules are set in tablets of stone.
  I want to ensure that heed is paid to the work done by one of the committees of the Scottish Constitutional Convention many years ago, which decided that the Scottish Parliament must work to normal daytime hours, must have a normal working year that fits in with Scottish school holidays, must have fixed dates for parliamentary Sessions so that families can be free from the uncertainty that besets us here and must conduct itself in a manner that allows the Members of the Scottish Parliament to be more in touch with their families, their communities and the wider world.
  I am concerned that some of the members of the committee might be so busy with their many other commitments that they will not have the time to devote to the detail of the committee's workings. I should like reassurance from the Minister on that.
  However, my main reason for speaking is to welcome the Bill with a glad heart. I have supported Scottish devolution nearly all my adult life. Today, I have the immense privilege of being here to vote the measure through Parliament after so many fruitless years when I could have wept at the endless frustration of the democratic will of the people of Scotland. I was somewhat bitterly amused yesterday to hear Tory Members claim that, as a matter of course, they were willing to accept the verdict of the people. If they had listened during the years when they inflicted the poll tax and other ills on us, despite our clearly expressed will to the contrary, the fight for devolution would not have built up such a head of steam. If ever there was a case of chickens coming home to roost, this is it.
  In the age of the soundbite, one in particular sticks in my memory from Canon Kenyon Wright at the opening of the first meeting in Edinburgh of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. He said:
  "What if that voice in the south says no?"
  At that time he was referring to Mrs. Thatcher. His reply was:
  "Well we are the people and we say yes."
  The point of devolution is to do things our way within the wide-ranging law-making and tax-varying powers that the Bill will deliver. The new Scottish Parliament will last a long time if it wins the people's respect. Let no one imagine that our people will put up with policies designed for other parts of the United Kingdom or with anyone's desire for neatness or tendencies towards centralisation.
  The Welsh Assembly may have different ideas, priorities and ways of doing business, but that is for it to decide—as it would be following after any developments
  228
  in Northern Ireland and the regions of England. I say to any centralisers among us now and in future that we did not struggle for devolution for all these years to end up with de jure difference but de facto sameness.
  That is not a nationalist point. I make it because we have the recent memory of Mrs. Thatcher to allow us to recall just how authoritarian and domineering a Prime Minister can be. I do not offer the warning lightly. That is why I very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement yesterday that British public life has been scarred by cynicism, which has sometimes amounted to contempt in public places for parliamentary democracy. That is a dangerous state of affairs. We have seen in other parts of the world what happens when there is contempt for parliamentary democracy.
  My right hon. Friend is right when he says that he hopes that the new Parliament can earn the trust of Scotland's people. It will not come automatically; it will have to be earned. The Scottish Parliament starts its days with such long-felt commitment behind it that anyone who ever lets it down will get short shrift. The quiet determination, the very lack of razzmatazz in the expression of the people's will for a Scottish Parliament, spoke volumes that no one dare ignore.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State rose to the occasion. He was absolutely correct to say that the Bill's arrival on the Floor of the House is a milestone and that the sweep of legislative powers that are to be transferred is difficult to overestimate. We are all taking pretty calmly the final end to Scottish provisions being tacked on, apologetically or otherwise, to basically English legislation. No longer will Scottish health, housing and education have to wait for a place in the Westminster queue. We had to wait almost three decades—from 1968—for parliamentary time for legislation on children in Scotland. So, let us have no more of that.
  It was sad to see the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) failing to rise to the occasion and being unable to do more than make the preposterous claim that the Bill is so ill-drafted that it needs his scrutiny for it to come to any good. That, coming from Mr. Poll Tax himself, gave Labour Members much innocent amusement.
  It would be uncharacteristic of me to speak in such a debate without mentioning equal representation of the sexes. I therefore welcome the reiteration yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland of his party's commitment to gender balance in the Scottish Parliament. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have devised a means by which they can deliver a 50:50 membership ratio. Of course, I also commend my own party's commitment, which has been held for a good number of years. It is fervently to be hoped that such efforts will not be challenged in the courts. That is why I am interested in the proposal made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm). I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues will consider such a possibility. I want the Scottish Parliament to be different from other Parliaments: to start its days with equal representation of our people, not to have to slog wearily for years to overcome imbalance.
  I think that I am running out of time. I wish that I could say more on the subject. Just before Hogmanay, I was clearing out a load of old rubbish from my house.

  229
  I was glad to include among it all the articles that I had found on how Labour would not deliver and how there would not be a Scottish Parliament, or that, if there were, it would only be a souped-up regional council. It all went into the bin, where it belongs. I look forward to the future of our Scottish Parliament.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate. Such debates are always educational. Indeed, that is their purpose. Having sat through two days of the debate, I certainly feel wiser after listening to many of the comments, particularly many of those of Labour Members.
  Opposition and Labour Members certainly start from two different philosophical bases. Labour Members say that we do not trust the people, that we simply do not see the demand for the Parliament and that it is being met by the Bill. I fully appreciate the strength of feeling. There is undoubtedly a tide of feeling—and has been—for a change in the Union created in the 18th century. I do not want to go into historical anecdotes, but it is amusing to listen to many of the arguments on the complaints about the way in which Scotland has been governed under the Union. Many of them arise directly from the ring-fencing of Scottish law, which resulted in different statutes having to be produced and the Scots complaining that they were at the end of the queue. That is an interesting reflection on complaints about the way in which the Union works. It is also said of Conservatives that we have changed our tune.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem is not so much the ring-fencing of Scots law but that Scots law is based on an entirely different system and therefore needs separate legislation?
  Mr. Grieve: I fully appreciate that Scots law is different. One of the great merits of the Union is that it preserves the differences. Indeed, how well those differences have been preserved is a tribute to the way in which the Union works. Nevertheless, it is an interesting irony that one of the complaints—it resulted directly in the desire for a Parliament—has been that two different systems are in operation.
  The question that we must answer is how we can make the new system work—even if I, as a Conservative, would have preferred the old system to continue. Labour Members did not listen to what we said during the referendum campaign. If they had, they would have heard clearly that, whatever views we held on the dangers of the course on which they were embarking, we have always accepted that we must try to make the new system work. I certainly pledge myself to do that throughout the process and in Committee.
  Nevertheless, we are entitled to, and must, point out the risks and oddities. The Bill represents a major constitutional proposal, yet I have noticed over the past 48 hours that hardly any Labour Members who represent an English constituency have spoken. I find that extraordinary. If the measure is to work, it must be a United Kingdom measure. The Conservative party may not have any Scots Members of Parliament, but that is the electorate's fault. [Interruption.] Or, it could be our own
  230
  fault. None the less, plenty of Labour Members who represent English constituencies might have explained how they see the system working. They have not done so, and that bodes ill.
  We shall look at the detail of the Bill in Committee, but even a moment's scrutiny enlightens us about some of the oddities that it will produce. Let us take clause 23, to which reference has been made. It appears—I hesitate to say it to some Labour Members—that even the finest brains of the Scots Bar may have admitted the clause's limitations. There is no doubt that, under clause 23, the power of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise and call to account those who may be operating in Scotland will be far more limited than that in Westminster. I hope that we can consider that in Committee.
  It is regrettable that a Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise vast areas of activity in Scotland, but not to summon certain persons before it, when a Committee in Westminster will be able to do so. It is a deficiency which stems directly from the parochialisation of politics, which arises when areas start to split themselves from others and decide that they want to run their own affairs. The question is how we can make adjustments for that, which will still allow maximum scrutiny.
  There are fascinating provisions concerning the Scottish Administration, which we shall go into in greater detail later. Such provisions will produce a weak administrative system. I do not know whether the wonderful consensus that is talked about so glowingly will be achieved in Edinburgh. It would fill me with delight if it were. People complain about adversarial politics, but we do co-operate and get on well in many forums. We also have serious differences. Those differences are expressed in the Chamber. I doubt very much whether in the system as it will exist, even with proportional representation, those differences will disappear. There is no doubt that if the result is weak government and a difficulty in achieving consensus, the system that is to be put in place will produce a Parliament in Edinburgh, and an Administration, that is unstable.
  The most regrettable aspect is that, as has been pointed out by Scottish nationalist Members, there is a host of areas in which there will at that stage be potential for friction concerning the reserved powers that remain at Westminster.
  I pointed out yesterday, and I repeat now, that clause 54 allows for the most bizarre interference by the Foreign Secretary in the workings of a Scottish Parliament. It says not only that he can effectively revoke legislation—that I can understand—but that he can coerce a reluctant Parliament into introducing a Bill. That sounds to me like cloud cuckoo land.
  I do not see why the Scottish Parliament should pass the Bill. Instead, the legislation would have to be dealt with in this House, and if that were the case, it would be a major source of friction. The minimisation of friction must be the central hallmark if we are to maintain the Union and allow it to develop.
  There are many other things that I wish to say about the Bill, and I will say them at a later stage. But for now I shall finish by returning to the English dimension. Let us forget for a moment about the West Lothian question; the real question centres round the fact that a new United Kingdom is being created, yet there has been no consultation with the people of England.

  231
  It is said that the Labour party commands a majority in England and can therefore do as it pleases, that it has a mandate. I accept that—but it is curious that under a Government who have been so careful to seek approval for their constitutional proposals by means of a referendum, such a consultation process has not taken place. Instead we are offered vague ideas about constitutional reform in England, no test of whose acceptability has ever been seriously put forward or even canvassed.
  If the whole thing works and the constitutional proposals go through, we shall have a radically and totally new country. However, if it does not work, because the people of England are broadly satisfied—my own soundings lead me to believe that, although they may not be satisfied with individual Governments, they are broadly satisfied with the parliamentary system under which they are governed—a central plank of the great edifice put forward by the Labour Government will not be there.
  How will that be compatible with the maintenance of the Union in the way that has been described? I am a believer in strong government, but if we do not have strong government, people should have clear choices. If they do not, difficult decisions are not taken.
  I am also a believer in trying to achieve consensus as far as possible, but if the people of England have not been invited into the consensus, enormous pressures will be generated as it becomes apparent to what extent Scotland is being accorded certain rights that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge"Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, are not mirrored in equity or echoed in any way in England.
  We have to address that problem, and for that reason there must be substantial reform of Scottish representation at Westminster, unless some wholly new federal construct is introduced. Because of the disparity in size of the two halves of the United Kingdom—England and Scotland—I see no prospect of a federal construct's working, although I should be happy if somebody could persuade me otherwise. Unless we address that problem, we shall not produce a good and sound Union for the future.
  I make a commitment to work hard during the passage of the Bill to see how it may be improved, so that the Union can work. However, I would not be doing justice to my own conscience or to the views of my electorate, which I have taken some trouble to sound out, if I did not put forward a note of caution about whether the proposals will work in practice.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: One of the striking characteristics of this two-day debate has been the reception given to the speeches of Tory Front-Bench spokespersons and, with one or two honourable exceptions, to those of most Tory Back Benchers. That reception has been universally hostile, not only from the Government Benches but from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway, where the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists sit.
  I had always thought that the Tories were hated because they had been in government for the past 18 years; now I understand that they are hated just because they are the
  232
  Tories. May I therefore begin by offering my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister on having the great good fortune to be in government when the official party of opposition is so hated and reviled by the country as a whole, as the debate has shown to be the case?
  I am also grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the debate myself, because there was a time when I thought that I might not make it—especially during the Christmas recess, when I received a letter from the Labour Whips telling me that I had been awarded a constituency week this week and did not need to attend Parliament.
  I am sure that there was no malice in that letter, and that it was a pure coincidence. No doubt it had escaped the Whips' notice that this was the week of the Scotland Bill, and that this was therefore my chance to take part in the debate and vote on the Bill. I am delighted that at least they have not physically tried to stop me doing that. It will be nice to go through the Lobby willingly with my party.
  I thank the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for his warning about the dangers of party lists. He warned that some Labour Members might not make it on to those lists—and I took it personally, because as he delivered his warning, he was looking directly at me.
  That reminded me of a song by Dundee's great songwriter, the late great Mary Brooksbank:
  "No longer from industry's son
  Does Labour seek improvement,
  The Cambridge and the Oxford don
  Have pinched the Labour movement".
  That was written a long time ago, which shows us that the problem that the hon. Gentleman identified is not new, but one that we in the Labour movement have been coping with for some time.
  I hope that the day will never dawn when to be working class, to be a trade unionist, to be a socialist or to be independent-minded will be seen as a disqualification from being a Labour party candidate. In fact, I am sure that that day will never arise—that is just a wee bid to make sure that I get on the panel.
  During the debate, it has struck me that almost since the time of the Act of Union itself, there has been pressure on Scottish Members of Parliament to withdraw from Westminster. I think that it was Lockhart of Carnworth, in the 18th century, who first put that proposal forward, and it was suggested again at the beginning of this century by the nationalist journal, the Scottish Review. Near the end of this century it was suggested again by Willie Mclllvanney, who, as many of us will remember, in the aftermath of the 1992 general election when the Tories had got in for a fourth successive term, called upon Scottish Members of this House to withdraw and return to Scotland.
  Until now, that pressure has been firmly resisted by Members of this Parliament, so we should not be all that surprised that that continues to be the case, except there is now a difference—now there will be a Parliament in Scotland. In the past, Scottish Members of this House refused to withdraw because they recognised that power lay in this House and, like any politician, they wanted to be close to the source of power. That will no longer be the case after the Bill is passed and a Parliament is established in Scotland.

  233
  I accept that there are many legitimate reasons why Scottish Members of this House should choose not to return to the Scottish Parliament and to remain and represent their constituencies here; not least because they will have a guaranteed seat in the House of Commons for another four years at least, and a Westminster seat in the hand may be worth two Scottish Parliament seats in the bush. I recognise also that some hon. Members have legitimate concerns with foreign affairs, defence, macro-economics and any of the other matters contained in the 18 pages of reserved powers in the Bill, and they will wish to spend their time dealing with those issues. That is entirely legitimate.
  It would not be legitimate for any hon. Member to decide that he did not want to join the Scottish Parliament because he perceived it to be in some sense a second-rate or subsidiary Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) came close to making that argument yesterday when he spoke about the Scottish Parliament being a lower form of Parliament. If that perception—that the Parliament was not a powerhouse in charge of Scotland's affairs, but was some kind of puppet Parliament placed in Edinburgh to carry out the bidding of this Parliament—was ever understood in Scotland, the great optimism that was released by the result on 11 September and by the publication of the White Paper and the Bill would evaporate in Scotland. Hon. Members who want to break up the Union should allow that notion to go forward in Scotland, because that would be the death knell for the Union between Scotland and England.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McAllion: I am not giving way. I do not have time and other hon. Members want to speak.
  We must take seriously some of the criticisms that have been made during the debate. There are 18 pages of reserved powers, and we shall have an opportunity in Committee to debate why there are so many. However, few in Scotland will disagree with some of them. For example, very few people in Scotland will deny to Westminster the right to keep control over the Crown, the succession to the Crown and the functions of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, as we do not have a great deal of concern with them anyway.
  There are other reserved powers about which most Scots will not be too bothered, including the Hypnotism Act 1952. I am not sure what that Act does, but I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will get along fine without the considerable powers that it gives. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister will give us an idea of what that Act does when he winds up. For example, if it makes it illegal to brainwash politicians by making them endlessly repeat stupid soundbites until they believe them, perhaps it would be more appropriate to leave the Act in the control of this House than pass it to the Scottish Parliament.
  Some reserved powers cause concern. Many hon. Members have touched on the powers relating to broadcasting. The exact powers to be reserved by Westminster are those set down in the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996. Those are considerable and wide-ranging powers. Originally, our party, through the constitutional convention, was committed to devolving them to Scotland. In the White Paper, that commitment
  234
  was watered down, but it was still there in a form. It has disappeared from the Bill, and an important debate will be held on that issue in Committee. I am not taking sides with the Scottish National party against my own party, but if we are changing our mind on broadcasting, we cannot do so without explaining why or justifying why broadcasting is not to be devolved, as was originally intended, to the Scottish Parliament.
  We can easily dismiss some other concerns—for example, the West Lothian question. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that he could not understand how any Scottish Member of this House after 1999 could in all conscience vote on purely English matters. If I have the great misfortune still to be here after 1999, I shall find it very easy to vote on purely English matters. I shall have no problem whatever with that in any sense at all. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and any Member of this Parliament has exactly the same rights as every other Member.
  If English people make the choice that their domestic legislation should be considered by the United Kingdom Parliament, they must accept the consequences of that decision. If they do not like it, they can go down the devolutionary road and set up an English constitutional convention. If they are looking for a consultant, I shall be happy to take on that role for them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that the settlement in the Bill is not stable. My answer to that is, "So what?" I have spent all my political life trying to destabilise the settlement in this Parliament, and I can tell Opposition Members that it is great fun and that it is even better fun when one gets one's way and destabilises the constitutional status quo, as that is good not only for the rest of Britain, but for England—if it ever learns the lesson.
  Last weekend, one Scottish Sunday newspaper described the battle lines of the new Scotland as being drawn on either side of a divide, and asked whether the new Parliament would be a driving force for separation and independence or a stabilising force to save the existing Union. I am not on either side of that divide. I want the Parliament as set out in the Bill, because it will be good for the government of Scotland. It is up to the people of Scotland what happens to that Parliament and what we make of it. They will decide what sort of Parliament it will be. If it leads to a separate Scotland, it will be their decision; if it leads to a devolved Scotland, it will be their decision; and if it leads to a socialist Scotland, I shall be over the moon. On that basis, I am happy to support the Bill.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), because when I made my maiden speech on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, he followed me and was extremely kind.
  I wanted to speak in the debate because I care very much what happens to Scotland. I have visited and stayed in Scotland many times and spent a great deal of time working there. Indeed, I honeymooned on the Isle of Arran, so I am well aware of the wonderful backdrop that Scotland provides to some delightful activities.
  I realise that a number of hon. Members who represent Scottish seats feel that those who represent English seats should have no say in the issue. As I have said before in

  235
  the House, Scottish devolution is a matter not merely for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom of which we are all citizens. Therefore, Scottish devolution is not merely the preserve of hon. Members representing Scottish seats; it is of fundamental and constitutional interest to all of us.
  English Members have not only a right but a duty to speak out on the issue. In fact, it is incumbent on us to do so, not only to preserve the Union, but to preserve the United Kingdom's position as an independent, self-governing nation state. There cannot be any doubt what is in the Government's mind. It is the breaking up of the United Kingdom and, bad though that is in itself, it is only part of a strategy that involves submerging this country in a federal Europe. We have Scottish devolution and Welsh devolution, we do not yet know what is coming for Northern Ireland, an assembly has been proposed for London and regional government for England. That all seems to be part of a plan to break the United Kingdom down into regions, with the intention of submerging each of those into a federal Europe.
  European federalism and the breaking up of the United Kingdom are the reverse of what people in this country want. Not many people mentioned Scottish devolution to me during the general election campaign, but since the referendum many constituents have done so, both on the doorstep and through the post. People in England are concerned about devolution because they see, as I do, that it could well usher in the break-up of the United Kingdom. Many of us would agree with that analysis.
  Curiously, although Scottish Office Ministers say that devolution will hold the United Kingdom together in some way, the Scottish National party claims the opposite—that it is the first step towards full independence for Scotland. Both views cannot be right and, having read the Bill carefully, I tend to agree with the Scottish National party's opinion, which is also held by many of my constituents, who realise that full independence for Scotland will be the natural consequence of the Bill and of devolution. That may well please the SNP, but it is anathema to so many people who believe in the integrity of the United Kingdom.
  I unashamedly stand by the Union because I want Scotland to be part of the kingdom in which I live, not because I want to impose some supposed English power on the people of Scotland, but because I have a genuine affection for Scotland. I hope that the Scottish nationalists will take that as it is intended, which is sincerely.
  I should have preferred the Scottish people to be asked to vote on such a constitutional matter part way through a Parliament, when the popularity of the Government and the result of the recent general election were not telling factors—I accept the popularity of the Labour Government—because it is an issue which is important enough to be discussed independently over a period of time.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the people of Scotland, at least, have been debating this subject for the past 18 years, if not longer?
  Mr. Robertson: The people in Scotland debated it in 1979 and came up with a different verdict.
  236
  The Government were successful in the referendum in September. As my Front-Bench colleagues have said, however much we dislike that decision and may fear its consequences and feel that the Scottish people were persuasively manipulated, we have to accept the result of a democratic referendum; but that does not mean that we should not point out the flaws, weaknesses and inherent dangers that we perceive in the Bill.
  As well as introducing a second Parliament in one nation, which is likely in itself to give rise to conflict, the Bill introduces a voting system that is completely peculiar in Britain. Not only will Members be elected to the Scottish Parliament by proportional representation, which is in itself a totally flawed and undemocratic system, but there will be two systems in operation at the same time, and two tiers of elected representatives: those with constituencies and those without; those who serve their constituents and those who serve those who compile the PR lists; those who will receive letters from their constituents on important matters and those who will not; those who will be replaced by electoral means if they choose to leave the Parliament early and those who will simply be replaced.
  At the moment, it may be especially important to my party to have such a system, because, as has been said, we may win seats that we would not otherwise have won; but that is far too weak and unconstitutional an argument to persuade me to support the proposals. On the contrary, we in the Conservative party are concerned about creating correct, lasting constitutional arrangements to serve everyone in the United Kingdom equally and fairly.
  I should love to say much more, but we are constrained by time. Time, I am afraid, will deny the House the wisdom of what else I had to say. My concern and my priority is to ensure the survival of the Union of the United Kingdom and the continuation of the United Kingdom as an independent nation state.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. David Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this historic debate. I add my contribution to the congratulations given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his part in getting the Bill to the stage that it has reached. I know that, with his characteristic modesty, he may not want to acknowledge his place in history, but hon. Members of all parties may want to acknowledge it for him.
  I want to concentrate on two main subjects: the role that the Parliament will play in rural areas, especially with respect to land use, and the issue of who will be eligible to stand for the Parliament in the 1999 elections. As the Member for the geographically largest Labour constituency in the United Kingdom—it stretches from the Atlantic to the North sea—I am extremely conscious of the real role that land has played in the history of the highlands.
  In the emotive highland clearances, sheep were deemed to be more important than ordinary working-class men or women. More than 100 years ago, many ordinary men and women, six of whom were indeed elected, stood for Parliament under the banner of the Highland Land League and contributed to forcing through the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, which still gives security of tenure to crofters.

  237
  In 1947, a Nazi sympathiser in the Knoydart estate in my constituency refused his tenants any development capability. That led to the seven men of Knoydart laying claim to crofts to give them some rights over land use. In current times, we have some excellent examples of community land use, such as the Stornoway trust and the Assynt crofters; and in my constituency we have the islanders of Eigg who, through a consortium, managed to get control over their land when absentee landlords refused them permission to be involved in the running of day-to-day land use.
  I welcome the setting up of the land reform policy group by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is an excellent step in analysing the use of land. We have to set land use in its proper context as part of a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable rural policy. I am convinced that the Bill is radical. I am convinced that the Parliament will be radical. My plea today is that we take a radical view of land use in the highlands.
  In 1964, Harold Wilson set up the Highlands and Islands development board, a body which stopped the depopulation of the highlands and islands. It had the power to intervene in land use and to acquire land where it was under-used and underexploited.
  I suggest that we need to consider four points in land use. First, we have to eliminate feudalism in land use—for example, the use of feudal superiors and vassals, which puts an historic slant on land use. It is outdated and needs to be changed. Secondly, we need to create new crofting land, which is not covered by existing legislation. Thirdly, we must provide farming tenants, who have security of tenure under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, with the entitlement to buy the land. Fourthly, where there is to be large-scale purchase of land, especially in the highlands and islands, there should be conditional and legally enforceable land-use codes.
  I also wish to touch on eligibility to stand for the new Scottish Parliament. Most of us agree that the new Parliament will provide an opportunity for new blood to be elected; for more young people and more women to be elected. I note from clause 15 that the Bill allows peers, ministers of religion and ordained persons to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament. However, thousands of local government employees who are politically restricted at present will not have the opportunity to stand. In Gandhi's terms, they are becoming political untouchables. They hold politically sensitive posts. They include middle managers, lawyers, architects and engineers—people who could contribute to the Parliament in terms of the quality of their abilities.
  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. My plea today is that Ministers examine clause 15.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about local government employees' eligibility to stand for election. Where in the Bill is there a disqualification for local government employees to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Stewart: Under the 1989 Act, staff who earn more than £25,000 are politically sensitive and cannot stand for election to the Westminster Parliament, the European Parliament or the Scottish Parliament. There is an
  238
  anomaly. That is why I referred to the review of the Local Government and Housing Act. There is an opportunity to make a change. If we deprive the Scottish Parliament of its lifeblood—as many able people as possible—we shall make a mistake.
  I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill. We have had some reference to the musical taste of some hon. Members. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) mentioned his interest in The Kinks and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) mentioned his interest in a variety of bands including The Doors. If I may lower the tone of the debate and mention the Spice Girls, what I want, what I really, really want is the people's Government made for the people, by the people and answerable to the Scottish people. That is our manifesto commitment and our historic decision. It is an opportunity to resolve the land issue, which has stymied highland land development for generations.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am slightly perplexed in following the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart). He and other Labour Members talked about land use in Scotland, and the Secretary of State mentioned feudal tenure. It is ironic that one of the first acts of the Scottish Parliament will be to bring land use and tenure in Scotland into line with practice in England. That will just have to be one of those things.
  I shall not consider at length the electoral system, although I pay tribute to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I shall briefly reflect on the fact that many of the contributions of Conservative Members were not blanket criticism of the scheme or, rather, the proposals in the Bill. Perhaps I should not use the word "scheme" in a debate about Scotland. Those speeches were the beginnings of our party's response to how the English question should be addressed.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who made an impassioned speech, which I regret missing, and the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) addressed the possibility of moving towards a federal system in the United Kingdom, which is one way of tackling the West Lothian question. All hon. Members should consider how we English Members of Parliament should respond to the devolution agenda.
  In many respects, the Scots, having spoken, have put the ball in the English court. That is their right and privilege; it is our job to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke at length on the same theme. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is not in his place, but I say to him that we should engage in that debate. I invite him to join me and other hon. Members on Friday in discussing the Referendum (English Parliament) Bill. That reflects the fact that we accept that there will be a different constitutional landscape at the end of this Parliament.
  The Secretary of State described the Bill's arrival on the Floor of the House as a milestone, but, as he also said, there is a strong sense of anti-climax in the debate. The long campaign for a Scottish Parliament,

  239
  the overwhelming dominance of pro-devolution parties in Scotland, Labour's dramatic general election victory in May last year and the decisive result of the September referendum all contribute to the perception that tonight's vote is not an historic decision. The moment of destiny has already passed. The Bill is about putting into effect choices that have already been made.
  When the Secretary of State first sat down at his desk in St. Andrew's house after the general election, he will have found that the Scottish people enjoy high levels of employment; that unemployment is below the European Union average and falling; that there is record inward investment; strong and sustained growth; and that public services, though one would never believe it from Labour rhetoric, are better funded than ever before.
  Scotland still has its problems, but it has undergone an unprecedented transformation over the past 18 years—like that of the rest of United Kingdom, but, in many ways, more dramatic—from a backward-looking, strike-torn failure into a modern, vibrant and confident nation. Long may that positive outlook continue. That is not only the legacy of the successful record of the previous Conservative Government but Scotland's latest dividend from the Union of the United Kingdom.
  The Union is not a dogma or a blind faith but a constitutional settlement which has secured the interests of all the nations in it for nearly 300 years. It is difficult to grasp the enormity of the consequences of this measure, which is no less than the recasting of that constitutional settlement. The Secretary of State described the Bill as a catalyst for change. There has been plenty of change for the better over the past decade or so, much of which the other parties did their best to resist. It is our responsibility to ensure that, as far as possible, the new constitutional arrangements do not disrupt or set back that change. That is the objective of Conservative policy on the Bill.
  The Conservatives campaigned long and hard against devolution because we fear the risk of breakdown in the relations between a Scottish Parliament and Westminster. That risk remains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has described. The debate has centred extensively on that danger, because therein lies the slippery slope towards total isolation for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) painted a graphic picture of how that could occur.
  That is why—I am grateful to the Secretary of State for quoting my Edinburgh speech so extensively—Conservatives are now determined to engage in the process of that major change to our constitution. That is why our candidates will fight the forthcoming elections in order to win and participate. It is vital that all responsible and reasonable voices are heard. That is the only way in which the new Parliament will become a stable and secure part of a new United Kingdom constitutional settlement, for it is the Union which has served Scotland so well in the past and is Scotland's lifeline to the future.
  The new Parliament must acknowledge and recognise the advantages of the Union. It must exercise restraint and finesse in all things, but, above all, in its relations with Westminster and Whitehall. The reason we still fear for Scotland's future is that the parties that have hitherto dominated Scotland have advanced their case for the
  240
  Parliament on the false premise that Scotland has done badly from the Union. Nothing could be further from the truth, but those parties have revived old suspicions and hatreds that are ultimately destructive.
  When in opposition, Labour and the Liberal Democrats spared no opportunity to whip up nationalist sentiments against the English where there was political advantage in doing so. It is to be expected that the nationalists should be past masters of that technique, but it was deeply disturbing to see serious political parties ride on the nationalists' coat tails.
  Our concern now is that the Edinburgh Parliament might be dominated by the same left-liberal alliance, spiced by the poison of nationalism, which foolishly, or cynically, has so far succeeded in persuading so many Scots that Scotland has had a bad deal from the Union. If that is what is meant by "new politics" north of the border, we are happy not to be part of it.
  Now is the time for all Unionists to make common cause. In making common cause with Unionists from other parties, I will repay the Secretary of State the compliment of quoting him, when he pointed out in yesterday's debate that the Edinburgh Parliament as proposed is not the reincarnation of the pre-1707 Parliament. He reiterated:
  "it is unashamedly a settlement within the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 34.]
  We have never doubted the commitment of the Scottish people to the United Kingdom, but when the Secretary of State signed the Claim of Right it was fair to doubt his because there is nothing in the Scottish Constitutional Convention's Claim of Right—[Interruption.] I am glad to note that I have irritated the right hon. Gentleman because what I am saying is obviously true. There is nothing in that Claim of Right or in any of the convention's recommendations that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of this Parliament. By contrast, clause 27(7) implicitly acknowledges that—grudgingly perhaps, but, none the less, it is in the Bill, and we welcome that as progress. To acknowledge the sovereignty of Parliament is to acknowledge what it is to be part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point because although the sovereignty of Parliament is quite clearly a concept of English constitutional law, if he reads the dicta of Lord President Cooper in McCormick v. the Lord Advocate, he will discover that that concept was never part of Scottish constitutional law. The Scottish Parliament did not have the same sovereignty as the English Parliament claimed, so there is no reason why the United Kingdom Parliament should have adopted exclusively English constitutional practice.
  Mr. Jenkin: That was the case in a previous period of Scottish history, but the referendum result confirms that the sovereignty of the Scottish people is vested in this Parliament. That is what the White Paper said and what is expressed in the Bill. Sadly, it is no surprise that this is a matter of dispute among pro-devolution parties. The hon. Member for Gordon has said that the days of parliamentary sovereignty are at an end. I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to ask him whether he would support

  241
  explicitly clause 27(7), but I doubt whether that is the case. The Minister of State did nothing to resolve that ambiguity. The consensus in Scotland Forward was a false consensus.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman fully picked up on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), so I shall give him another opportunity. The quotation from Lord Cooper is:
  "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law."
  That was the opinion of the First Division of the Court of Session in Scotland. Does the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) disagree with it?
  Mr. Jenkin: The reality of the British constitution is that to be part of the United Kingdom is to accept that the sovereignty of the people is vested in Parliament. It does not surprise me that the nationalists should take an opposite view, but it does surprise me that Members from other, supposedly Unionist, parties should do so.
  The fundamental question is whether the new Parliament will respect the limits set on it by the Bill. That ultimately depends on how the Parliament behaves and how it is perceived, rather than on how its powers are defined in law. Will it be no more than a parish council, to which the Prime Minister once rather unwisely compared it; or, if it chafes against policies such as welfare reform or student fees, will it claim a mandate at least equal to that of Westminster to assert the sovereign will of the Scottish people? That is clearly the expectation of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).
  For that reason, it is vital that the sovereignty of this Parliament should be reaffirmed. We shall table an amendment that should offend none but those who have an implicitly nationalist agenda. Although such an amendment is, of course, superfluous from a legal point of view, its purpose is not legal, but political—it is designed to reinforce the bonds that hold the Union together, at a time when they are likely to be tested. The Secretary of State will have a chance to show that he is not the Dr. Faustus of Scottish politics, who has sold his Unionist soul to the nationalist devil for the temporal glory of holding office.
  Mr. Canavan: To portray my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as some threat to the Union is patently ridiculous. The biggest threat to the Union over the past 20 years was Lady Thatcher's stubborn refusal to respond to the legitimate aspirations of the people of Scotland to have a Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Jenkin: I seem to remember that the trade unions in Dundee, East cost the people of Dundee an electronics plant. That is what Mrs. Thatcher fought in Scotland, and the people of Scotland should be grateful that she succeeded.
  There are bound to be serious disagreements between the two Governments. The White Paper assumes that the new Scottish Executive—effectively the Government of Scotland—will work harmoniously and in mutual co-operation with Whitehall. Any observer of relations
  242
  between Whitehall and local government, or between national Governments in the European Union, will testify to the likely difficulties ahead.
  This afternoon, the Minister made much of the German, Italian and Spanish models of devolved government. If we were independent states drawing under a single Government within the framework of a carefully balanced constitution, the German experience would be instructive, but that is clearly not the case in the United Kingdom. In Italy, regional government has made public finances all but impossible to control; and Spain should be a cautionary tale to reckless British regionalisers. The lesson of Spain is perfectly clear: a rolling programme of devolution generates a process of inter-regional competition, leading to precisely the sort of instability that we should all fear. Spain's politics have become bogged down, and its economy is sclerotic with unemployment rampant. It is hardly an advertisement for the success of such a devolution policy.
  Here, there will be the same delay and confusion as disputes are resolved—delay and confusion that could threaten inward investment and hurt business confidence. At worst, such conflict will be deliberately used to fan the flames of nationalism, both Scottish and English, in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. An Edinburgh Parliament, dominated by the nationalists and the left—who have spent the past 20 years denigrating the constitutional settlement under which Scottish culture and enterprise have flourished—will inevitably demand more powers for itself and greater independence for Scotland. That is why we have always said that the Government's plan could destroy the United Kingdom. Unionists must join forces to ensure that that does not happen.
  Scotland's profile is not the same as Scotland's influence. The danger is that Scotland and its interests are being removed from the real spheres of influence upon which jobs and prosperity depend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) talked of Scotland's potential isolation in Europe. Scottish Ministers will no longer participate in collective decision making at Westminster to help to construct the UK's negotiating position, except with the permission of the Westminster Government. All that the Executive will have is the right to be consulted. Instead of having a genuine involvement as equals, Scottish Ministers would have to take it or leave it.
  What would happen if Edinburgh campaigned openly against a UK position at a crucial point in negotiations on an issue such as fish or agricultural prices, or some competition issue? What would happen if Edinburgh refused to implement a European Community decision to cut fish quotas? What sort of influence would Scotland have then, except to be subject to a concordat?
  Scotland is reducing its voice in Whitehall just when it most needs it. With the reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster and the office of Secretary of State stripped of all its powers, Scotland will lose its influence in Whitehall and Westminster, where the crucial decisions affecting Scotland will continue to be made. The prospect is that Scotland will have its existing share of public spending eroded. Maintaining that share is the greatest challenge facing the new Parliament.

  243
  Money is likely to be at the heart of most of the conflict between Westminster and Edinburgh. The present system has served Scotland remarkably well. The most recent figures show that public spending per head of population was 24 per cent. higher than in England.
  The Government's White Paper says that the Scottish Parliament's budget will be broadly comparable to the present budget of the Scottish Office and also includes a commitment to the Barnett formula. But those promises are not enshrined in the Bill—quite the opposite. Clause 61(2) simply says:
  "The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments into the Fund out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine."
  It will be up to the Secretary of State to determine how much money Scotland will receive, but the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament here at Westminster, not Edinburgh, thus providing an annual flashpoint between the Scottish and UK Governments.
  Under the present system, the Secretary of State is able to fight for Scotland's interests within the Cabinet, which has direct responsibility for government north of the border and hence every interest in securing a good deal for Scotland. That will no longer be the case after devolution, when the Secretary of State will have little clout in Whitehall. Suggestions that he could combine the job with that of First Minister are improbable in view of the responsibilities given to each party in the Bill as drafted.
  I repeat that the Conservatives stand by the spending settlement that we gave Scotland in the previous Parliament. It reflects Scotland's needs, but it will take some explaining in future as the figures fall under scrutiny in the new political climate surrounding devolution, and Scotland starts to deploy its own tax-raising powers.
  Devolution has led to widespread questioning of the Barnett formula, with many complaints about it from the Government's own Benches, including complaints from Lord Barnett himself. The insidious and insistent questioning of the existing public expenditure settlement between Scotland and England is likely to be a permanent feature of the new post-devolution politics. Its effects are bound to be felt by Scottish public services and taxpayers in the years ahead. There may never be a dramatic reckoning, but Scotland should prepare for the likelihood that billions of pounds will be whittled away from the Scottish block grant in the next few years unless the Scottish Parliament can play as canny a game with Westminster as successive Secretaries of State for Scotland have played in Cabinet.
  What an irony it would be if the very devolution of which Scottish socialists have dreamed for so long and which was so dreaded by the Conservatives should result in exactly the same sort of paring down of the public sector in Scotland that all Scotland's political parties dread. Nothing would return Scotland's politics so rapidly to reality than the unravelling of the generous public spending settlement that Labour inherited from the Conservatives; nothing will create as much uncertainty, tension and turmoil.
  The Opposition do not invite the House to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, but nor does our reasoned amendment accept the Bill as it stands.
  244
  We do not have a rose-tinted view of how the Parliament will work. The new arrangements are not a settlement but a series of unanswered questions. The political context of the Bill leaves huge scope for dashed expectations for the Scottish people, and misunderstanding and dispute between Edinburgh and Westminster.
  Scotland is set to be sidelined in Europe and UK politics, and it is far from clear how Scotland will continue to secure its interests or public funding without raising domestic and business rates alongside the tartan tax. That threatens the Scottish prosperity that Labour inherited from the Conservatives.
  History will judge whether Labour has led the Scots responsibly, but we shall make our case in Committee on all these points. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for the spirit of co-operation across the Floor on this matter.
  We hold our faith with the Union—it is unimpeachable—but, as the Conservative and Unionist party, we also hold our faith with the clear decision of the Scottish people.
  For 300 years, the Union has survived the challenges of famine, revolt, depression and the threat of invasion. Devolution represents a new challenge which, as a party and as a nation, we must take in our stride. I urge the House to support our reasoned amendment.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): This is truly an historic and momentous day for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. I am confident that, in a few minutes, the House will approve in principle the Government's plans to establish a Scottish Parliament.
  On 11 September 1997, it was yes, and I have no doubt that tonight it will also be yes. We shall thus pave the way for one of the most significant shifts in the British constitution in decades. We shall advance the aspirations of the Scottish people, and we shall be one step closer to delivering on the promise that we made to the people of the United Kingdom on 1 May 1997.
  Of course there is a sense of history; we have been discussing this matter for more than 100 years, as the aspiration for home rule has ebbed and flowed. Of course there is a sense of anticipation; for the past 20 years, there has been disappointment and frustration. Now, however, there is a sense of achievement, because real progress has been made in the past eight months, under a Labour Government.
  We can now look 16 months ahead and see the election of 129 members to a new Parliament in Edinburgh—the first sign that we can deliver on the promise we have made. That will be the new dawn. I believe that all Labour Members, and many Opposition Members, look forward to that day.
  The Bill is a genuinely historical document. The whole of Scotland can take pride in its achievements. It is a more radical piece of legislation than anyone could have imagined more than a year ago. The Bill enshrines a far-reaching settlement, and provides the basis for the new politics in Scotland. That concept has been much abused, but it ill behoves the Conservatives, who after 18 years in government have got themselves into a sorry mess, not to

  245
  want to support some idea of a new politics in which participation and inclusivity can again become the hallmarks of the British political system.
  The White Paper is all there in the Bill: there has been no cutting of corners or back-sliding. The Bill will deliver a Scottish Parliament with wide-ranging law-making powers, and, of course, tax-varying powers. It is a key part of the Government's programme of reform and modernisation of the UK constitution and Government. For the UK, we have delivered a new constitutional foundation, building Scotland firmly into the UK, and giving her the opportunity to take responsibility for her own affairs.
  Again, the Opposition from a sedentary position throw up smears when concepts are talked about, but the importance of devolution is simply the fact that we are now marching forward to a new constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom. That is vital. It is high time that Conservative Members woke up to that new reality.
  The agenda is imaginative and exciting. On it are measures regarding Scotland, Wales, a voice for London, regional development agencies, House of Lords reform, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into UK law, and freedom of information. In the past few days, there has appeared on the agenda the possible step forward in Ireland of a settlement that looks at the constitution and looks at government.
  The Government have moved swiftly since 1 May 1997. We have had an election, a White Paper, a referendum, a Bill, a site, and a Second Reading; and next week, with the involvement of the Conservative party, we shall set up a consultative steering group to look at the working practices of the Parliament and its Standing Orders.
  Change is vital. This is not a debate about some abstract political theory. The Bill will strengthen the economy of Scotland and of the United Kingdom, just as it will contribute to social cohesion. It will reinforce national identity, which is so vital to our pluralist society. It will nurture cultural diversity, and ultimately it will enhance personal freedom. Is that not something worth fighting for—something worth debating in the House?
  This is not just a settlement for Scotland. The Opposition should appreciate that it concerns the whole United Kingdom. We hear stories of an English backlash, but the most hurtful aspect for the constitution of the UK is that the Opposition fail to distinguish between practical reality and political prejudice. English people should not hear it suggested of them that they are anti-Scottish or involved in a backlash of some kind. That does nothing for the credibility of this House.
  Mr. Rowe: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish people have every right to expect to determine their future in their own way; but is there not something improper about the proposition that Scottish Members of Parliament should be able to determine the future of my constituents when my constituents have absolutely no right to determine the future of the people of Scotland? If, as the Minister rightly says, the Bill affects the entire United Kingdom, is he not anxious lest he sow the seeds of future disaffection?
  Mr. McLeish: I apologise to the House for giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Had he been here, he would have heard that matter raised, and answered, several times toda1y.
  246
  What has happened since 1 May means that we shall have new structures and institutions in United Kingdom politics, and a new relationship between people, politics and Parliament.
  I want to analyse a little more closely the Opposition contribution to today's and yesterday's debates. The Conservatives seem to have adopted several positions. First, there was the realism that is evident to some extent in the reasoned amendment and in some of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram); but most evident in the attitude of the Scottish Tories. They recognise that the Scottish Parliament is the future, because it is what the people of Scotland want. They also recognise that the electoral system that we have proposed gives them an opportunity for some representation and rehabilitation in Scotland. Most importantly, I hope that Conservatives recognise that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament will bring significant benefits to the people of Scotland.
  Other remarks from Opposition Front Benchers, however, show that they remain sceptical—some would say cynical. They clearly find it hard to believe that the UK Government and the Scottish Administration can co-exist peacefully and sensibly in the interests of the whole United Kingdom. They are hung up on worst case scenarios, and seem to believe that we should legislate for every conceivable eventuality likely to arise from devolution if an Administration in London or Edinburgh deliberately set out to be destructive or obstinate.
  If, for example, an English nationalist Conservative Government decided to cut the block grant to the Scottish Parliament, or to deny Scottish Ministers access to European discussions, no amount of legislation could prevent wrecking action of that type.
  I refer in passing to the other positions adopted by Opposition Members. The English nationalist spectre was raised several times, but I wonder whether that was a product of fevered imaginations at Westminster, rather than based on real feeling in the country at large.
  After all, devolution was a central plank of the Labour party's manifesto at the last election, which found favour throughout the UK. I am not aware of a groundswell of resentment in England since the Scottish and Welsh referendums, or of any genuine, widely supported calls for an English Parliament. The Government are, however, committed to a genuine rolling programme of devolution to the English regions that will further strengthen the Union.
  The other position adopted by Opposition Members was almost fundamentalist—a defence of the status quo. There seems to be a fear in some quarters that the sky will fall in if there is any constitutional change whatever. Hon. Members outwith the Conservative Benches will confirm that that will not happen.
  I shall deal with some of the major points raised by the Opposition over the two days. One of the key themes in a number of speeches was Europe. We heard much from hon. Members about the alleged lack of influence within the Councils of the European Union, but before I respond to that, I shall remind the House what the Bill provides.
  The Bill gives the Scottish Parliament and Executive all the powers they need to play a full role in European matters, as promised in the White Paper. The Parliament and Executive will be responsible for observing and implementing Community law in the devolved areas.

  247
  The Parliament will be able to scrutinise relevant EU proposals to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly reflected, and feed its views into the UK scrutiny process. The Parliament will be able to legislate to give effect to Community law for Scotland; similarly, Scottish Ministers will be able to make regulations or otherwise take any necessary action to give effect to Community obligations.
  Scottish Ministers will be able, by virtue of schedule 5, to take part in negotiations with the UK's European partners and otherwise assist UK Ministers to work constructively for the common interests of Scotland and the UK in Europe. [Interruption.] It is interesting, when standing at the Dispatch Box, to listen to the sneers, hisses and largely unintelligent remarks coming from the Opposition Front Bench. It is useful to remind Opposition Members on the Front Bench that humility is easy to say, but difficult to practise. Unless the Conservative Opposition start to recognise reality, they will continue to be marginalised.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I know that he is one of the epitomes of humility in the House, and we always like to take lessons in humility from him.
  I am sure that the Minister did not intend to mislead the House. He referred to schedule 5, paragraph 6(2)(b), and suggested that that allowed Ministers of the Scottish Parliament to take part in negotiations. He used the word "assist", but can he tell me where in that passage there is any reference to taking part in negotiations?
  Mr. McLeish: The point has been raised repeatedly. The existing situation works perfectly well. Are the Conservatives making a veiled threat about the future, and implying that they will overturn, undermine or reject what works satisfactorily now?
  The right hon. Member for Devizes asked how a Scottish Minister who led a UK delegation would answer to the House for the leadership he gave. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised the matter, as it is an important issue, and illustrates the point that we are trying to make. It would be for the UK Minister who would be participating in the delegation to answer to the House for what had been said and done by the delegation. It is the UK Minister who will be accountable to Westminster. In the same way, the Scottish Minister will answer to the Scottish Parliament for what the delegation has done. That shows that we are talking about a joint UK delegation.
  I was grateful for the contribution from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). He raised several important points, and I assure him and the House that we take them seriously. We are determined that the Scottish Executive will be properly held to account. The argument, if there is one, is not about the underlying principles, but about the means of achieving agreed goals.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that those goals can be achieved only through detailed scrutiny and control by the House—detailed scrutiny and control that the House does not seek to exercise in relation to local authorities; nor did it do so in relation to devolved administration in Northern Ireland. However, we must
  248
  ensure that there is proper scrutiny, and we want to develop that in discussion with the Opposition in Committee.
  Many matters that have been raised by Opposition Members require a sensible and constructive response. That would be extraordinarily difficult in the time available. However, the question of finance raised by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is one that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will take seriously. I hope that we shall be able to show that the proposed Parliament will have substantial legislative powers and new, more effective and modern ways of ensuring that public funds are spent properly, and that we obtain genuine value for money.
  I turn briefly to the reasoned amendment, which betrays some of the schizophrenia from which the official Opposition continue to suffer. The amendment complains that the Bill
  "fails to create a constitutional settlement which is stable and enduring".
  My first reaction is to suggest that the position which we, the Government, inherited in May, with its obvious and massive democratic deficit north of the border, was hardly a recipe for stability. The Government's response has been to create a settlement which can endure precisely because it has secured overwhelming support among the people of Scotland.
  There is little point in the Opposition's continuing to take at face value the votes of 1.7 million who said yes but then turning quickly away, and pretending that that did not happen. To cement relationships between people, Parliament and politics, we must be crystal clear that, when the public or the people speak, this House and any House must listen.
  Mr. Jenkin: During the past two days, we have heard one supporter of devolution after another suggesting their own changes and amendments, and suggesting that what is before us is not a stable settlement. That is because they imagine more and more power being transferred to the new Parliament. How can the Minister say that we have a stable settlement when the nationalists, who were supporters of his proposals, are saying that they see the Bill as the start of a journey towards an independent Scotland?
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of digging a deep, deep hole. During the debate, there have been only two signs of potential trouble ahead. Those have come from Conservative nationalists in England, with the possibility of potential trouble from the nationalists in Scotland. What we are proposing will embed us within the Union. It will give considerable devolved power to Scotland to enable it to involve itself in markets that affect Scotland. I suggest that that is a sensible and stable way forward. Of course, the enduring settlement is embraced within the Bill.
  I firmly believe that the settlement that we are proposing will be stable and enduring. I believe also, contrary to the second complaint in the Opposition's reasoned amendment, that it will enhance Scotland's position within the United Kingdom and in Europe, and indeed within the wider world. The Bill provides for a powerful Parliament and a powerful Executive at the heart of the Scottish Administration. They will have full powers

  249
  to observe and implement European law within the devolved areas, and they will be able to play a role in negotiations with European partners.
  The Opposition's amendment argues that the Bill's lack of
  "clarity on taxes and resources threatens the interests of Scottish business, Scottish people and Scottish jobs".
  Nothing could be further from the truth. In Scotland, the business community is being far more progressive under Conservative Opposition. A new reality is dawning, which it wants to participate in and promote. The business community wants to see Scotland as a showcase for internationalism, technology, and investment in industry, as well as wealth creation and jobs.
  I started by saying that this was an historic day for the people of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to vote against the Opposition's reasoned amendment, but I welcome its opening words. They accept and respect
  "the clear decision of the Scottish people in favour of a devolved Scottish Parliament with limited income tax-varying powers".
  I recognise that the Bill is a significant step forward, and it is high time that the Opposition also appreciated that it is a step forward for them. Constitutional change requires all political parties to sign up for the project. There is still a hesitating and grudging acceptance that that is where the Conservatives might want to be.
  Elections will be fought in Scotland, and there will be Conservative candidates. I think that some Conservative Members might be considerate of that, because anything that is said here will become part of the debate north of the border.
  I welcome the part that all Opposition parties played in drawing up the programme motion for the remaining stages of the Bill's passage through the House. I am obviously delighted that they have agreed to scrutinise the Bill in a spirit of partnership rather than antagonism. That is good news for the people of Scotland. I am very pleased that all the political parties have accepted an invitation to join the consultative steering group.
  The Scotland Bill is the start of a new chapter in the history of Scotland, but it is only a start. It is up to us as politicians, to the people of Scotland and to the rest of the United Kingdom, to make devolution work. I am confident that we shall do so, and that we will all reap the benefit.
  With some humility, and tremendous pride, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 411.

  Division No. 126]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Amess, David

  Brady, Graham

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bercow, John

  Burns, Simon

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cash, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Chope, Christopher

  250

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacKay, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cran, James

  Maples, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Day, Stephen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Faber, David

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Fallon, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Prior, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Randall, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gibb, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Gill, Christopher

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hammond, Philip

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Horam, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wardle, Charles

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Whittingdale, John

  Key, Robert

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Wilkinson, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Willetts, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wilshire, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Woodward, Shaun

  Letwin, Oliver

  Yeo, Tim

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and

  Loughton, Tim

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allan, Richard

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Baker, Norman

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  251

  Banks, Tony

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cummings, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Dafis, Cynog

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Denham, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brake, Tom

  Doran, Frank

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burgon, Colin

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burnett, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foulkes, George

  Chaytor, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Galbraith, Sam

  Church, Ms Judith

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Norman A

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gorrie, Donald

  Coaker, Vernon

  Graham, Thomas

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Grant, Bernie

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Colman, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Gunnell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hain, Peter

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cox, Tom

  Hanson, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Crausby, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  252

  Healey, John

  McFall, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Heppell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hesford, Stephen

  McLeish, Henry

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  McNulty, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  MacShane, Denis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  McWalter, Tony

  Hoey, Kate

  McWilliam, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hope, Phil

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marek, Dr John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Maxton, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Meale, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Michael, Alun

  Illsley, Eric

  Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Milburn, Alan

  Jamieson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mitchell, Austin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Moore, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Mountford, Kali

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Mudie, George

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Mullin, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Keetch, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Olner, Bill

  Kidney, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pearson, Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Laxton, Bob

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lepper, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Leslie, Christopher

  Plaskitt, James

  Levitt, Tom

  Pond, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pope, Greg

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Pound, Stephen

  Linton, Martin

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lock, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Love, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McAllion, John

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Purchase, Ken

  McCabe, Steve

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Radice, Giles

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rammell, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rapson, Syd

  McDonnell, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  253

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Swinney, John

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rogers, Allan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Todd, Mark

  Roy, Frank

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ruane, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Salmond, Alex

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tyler, Paul

  Sawford, Phil

  Vaz, Keith

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wallace, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wareing, Robert N

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Watts, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Webb, Steve

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

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

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Soley, Clive

  Wills, Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wilson, Brian

  Spellar, John

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Stevenson, George

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wray, James

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stott, Roger

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jane Kennedy and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

SCOTLAND BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scotland Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
254

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act,

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment,

(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament or the Consolidated Fund of sums so payable by virtue of subordinate legislation under the Act, and

(3) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making loans to the Scottish Ministers in pursuance of the Act.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scotland Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the imposition by virtue of a tax-varying resolution of the Scottish Parliament of charges to income tax in relation to the income of Scottish taxpayers, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.

In this Resolution, 'tax-varying resolution' means a resolution providing for the percentage determined to be the basic rate for any year of assessment to be increased or reduced for Scottish taxpayers by a number specified in the resolution which does not exceed three and is either a whole number or half a whole number.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Scotland Bill:—
1. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in eight allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the eighth day.
2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in three allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the third day.
3. (1) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill;
(2) Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on the Bill may be taken;
(3) The Business Committee shall report to the House a Resolution as to proceedings in Committee not later than 22nd January 1998; and
(4) Any resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under the Standing Order (whether before or after the date on which the Committee is to report under this paragraph and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House).
4. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order,

(1) The Chairman or Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

255

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(3) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to a series of clauses or schedules to which no notice of amendment has been given by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those clauses and schedules.

(4) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

5. In this Order "allotted day" means a day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
6. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order so as to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Order, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
7. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of proceedings on any Lords Amendments or any subsequent message from the Lords relating to the Bill, such Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.—[Mr. Dewar.]

PETITION

  Maternity Unit (Maldon)
  10.17 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat for a moment? Will hon. Members please leave as quickly and quietly as possible? [Interruption.] Will hon. Members please leave quietly?
  Mr. Whittingdale: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Maldon, who are campaigning for the maternity unit at St. Peter's hospital to remain open. The Maldon district covers a large area with many scattered communities, and if the maternity unit closes, expectant mothers will have to travel a considerable distance if they wish to have their babies in hospital.
  The petition has been raised by a local group called MOMMS, which stands for Mothers Opposed to Maldon Maternity Shutdown, and carries 7,914 signatures. It says:
  The Petitioners therefore request that 0the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to intervene and ask North Essex Health Authority to remove its proposal to close St. Peter's Maternity Unit and to instead encourage and promote the use of the Unit thus increasing its cost-effectiveness.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Agro-chemical Incidents
  Motion made, and Question proposed at this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  10.19 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the introduction of regulations requiring the notification of agro-chemical incidents. The debate is particularly timely given the support that the early-day motion on the subject has gained from hon. Members of all parties.
  In introducing a debate on this subject, I hope to draw attention to the problems experienced by those who believe that they have been harmed by exposure to agro-chemicals but have difficulty in finding evidence on one side or the other. Currently, very little is known about the effect of agro-chemicals on human health—especially the long-term, more chronic effects. People who have been exposed to such chemicals have no way of knowing whether their subsequent illness is a definite result of that exposure.
  I see many who believe that they suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis or another chronic debilitating illness and who date it back to some incident involving agro-chemicals. I call on the Government to make exposure to agro-chemicals resulting in a visit to a doctor or hospital a notifiable event. That would mean that people exposed to agro-chemicals would in future have their cases documented and recorded so that a database for such exposures and their effects could be built up. It would also allow for earlier investigation and greater awareness on the part of doctors and hospitals.
  Statistics provided by the Health and Safety Executive demonstrate a clear need for such a move. The HSE's pesticides incident appraisal panel considers cases investigated by the HSE in which pesticides have been alleged to have caused ill health. The panel considered just 81 cases in 1996–97. In only one of those cases could a link between pesticides and illness be proven, and that was the case of a man employed to use pesticides constantly. In 26 more cases, there was too little information for the matter to be proved one way or the other, although 11 of them were thought to point to a likely link. These cases mostly involve members of the public.
  Those cases and countless others like them—involving people who believe they have been infected—ought to be investigated more promptly. I have details of six cases of agro-chemicals being associated with illness on the Isle of Wight alone. That is just one constituency, and yet it could account for 13.5 per cent. of all cases considered by the panel.
  If the Government acted following this debate, one of my constituents, Mr. Alex McBain, would have the small compensation of knowing that, in future, people will be able to prove that their illness has been caused by exposure to agro-chemicals. Mr. McBain went out into his garden one day and was caught, he alleges, by a blast of fungicide from a tractor spray. He shouted a warning to the tractor driver, but he carried on as normal.
  The following day Mr. McBain experienced severe muscle fatigue and felt very unwell. By 16 June, some seven days after the event, he had become so unwell that he could not walk unsupported. He went to his local

  257
  GP and blood tests were taken. The results of those tests took a long time and the wrong tests were done. No link could be established, but, unfortunately, Mr. McBain deteriorated significantly and had to be admitted to hospital where he rested for some weeks.
  What concerns me most about the incident is that it was Mrs. McBain who had to seek advice from the HSE. The hospital and the local doctor were completely remiss in not trying to establish a link between the history that Mr. McBain had given and the illness that occurred subsequently. It is totally unacceptable that relatives of the sufferer have to become experts in the disease to seek advice.
  The HSE acted promptly by sending a man over within days of Mrs. McBain's getting in touch, but unfortunately the investigation was somewhat perfunctory as far as the victim was concerned. The investigator was at the house for only 20 minutes and tried to find all sorts of reasons why Mr. McBain's illness might not have been due to spraying and why, if it had been the spray, it could not have affected the garden. I could give all sorts of details, but I do not think that I need to detain the House at this late hour.
  The result is that an active 75-year-old man who used to swim every day and to walk his six dogs is now semi-paralysed and crippled. If we had been aware of what was going on, his condition might have been ameliorated and he might have been treated. Certainly, he would now have had a stronger case for finding out whether a link could have been proven between the incident that he described and his subsequent illness.
  The other feature of the event was the amount of off-the-record information that Mr. McBain was given. He was told, "Yes, that was the most likely cause, but we can't prove it, so we can't put it in an official report." Again, that must be unsatisfactory.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to look into the circumstances surrounding the case and plan some Government action. First, incidents of exposure ought to be notifiable, so that doctors and hospitals become more aware of the potential risk. Secondly, we should have a system for looking into the post-marketing effects of agro-chemicals in the same way that we have for pharmaceutical medicines. Often, drugs are extensively tested before marketing, but subsequent use shows that side effects that were not theoretically anticipated occur. Some notable drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market and the same must apply in the case of some agro-chemicals.
  I did not seek this debate because I am prejudging the safety of existing sprays; nor am I implying that we have irresponsible farmers, especially on the Isle of Wight. I am trying to illustrate the inadequacy of the present system. I urge the Government to consider the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive and the current state of notification.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on this debate and thank him for bringing an important subject to the attention of the House. I must pass on my concern and sympathy for the illness suffered by his constituent. He will know that
  258
  I am aware of the incident involving Mr. McBain. I have written to the hon. Gentleman and to his constituent about the case.
  The incident in question was investigated fully. Inspectors visited the site and interviewed Mr. McBain and the farm foreman and spray operator. They concluded that there had been no irregularities or breaches of any legislation. However, I accept that there is clearly some dispute about the quality of the investigation and will be happy to write to the hon. Member again, if that would be helpful, to clarify any further points.
  Pesticides are inherently toxic and so I understand the hon. Member's concerns and those of his constituents. It is precisely because pesticides are so effective against pests and diseases that they pose a potential risk to people, wildlife and the environment. When one considers that any agricultural worker—there are about half a million of them—might be exposed to such chemicals, as might members of the public, there is a clear need to ensure that they can be and are used safely. That is why we have in place an extensive range of legislative and administrative controls, designed to ensure that all pesticides and veterinary medicines are safe to those who use them and to bystanders, wildlife and the environment.
  The sale, supply, storage and use of the products, with the advertisement of pesticides and the marketing of veterinary medicines, are subject to ministerial approval. Ministers are advised on the matter by independent experts: the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Veterinary Products Committee. As part of the approval process, applicants are required to submit a great deal of toxicological data, covering both acute and chronic effects. That is then linked by those evaluating the product with extensive exposure data. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, we know a great deal about the effects of agro-chemicals on human health.
  Dr. Brand: I respect the expertise of the people on those advisory panels, but in exactly the same way as pharmaceutical companies seek expert advice and get it wrong, it would be surprising if that did not happen with agro-chemicals. The fact that only 81 cases of possible deleterious effects on human health were investigated in the past 12 months shows that we do not have a handle on the problem.
  Angela Eagle: I will deal with the figures that the hon. Gentleman has cited in a subsequent part of my speech. I said that there were expert panels, but I did not say that they were infallible. Clearly, we have to try to establish a procedure that gives us the maximum chance of detecting whether any unpredicted effects manifest themselves when the substances are used.
  The Government have recently considered the need for further controls across a wide range of products. We recently revised a code of practice on precautions taken to protect non-target species in the environment and on the use of chemicals in the water supply. It is also an offence under the Water Resources Act 1991 to discharge polluting matter to surface or ground waters unless those discharges are under or in accordance with a consent issued by the Environment Agency.
  The new regulations and further controls to protect ground water have been put together in a consultation paper on proposed revised regulations that was placed in

  259
  the Library yesterday. The use of pesticides and veterinary medicines at work is subject to health and safety legislation that requires that risk is assessed in each and every case, that employees are adequately trained and instructed and competent to do the job, and that others, such as members of the public, are not put at risk.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As the Minister may know, I chair an all-party group concerned with organophosphate pesticides. I do not think that there is any doubt in anyone's mind, inside the House or out, that the Government are trying their very best to improve the standards and quality of the control mechanisms, but the concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight rightly says, is whether the information is being projected sufficiently far down the chain to those who use the products or are responsible for following up when there is an incident.
  In particular, there is concern about the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive and the extent to which it is on top of the job. There have been too many examples in which information has been available to the HSE that has not been disseminated to those who should be concerned: to farm workers, in this case, or their general practitioners.
  The case that my hon. Friend outlined so eloquently is being replicated throughout the country, because the HSE has simply not had the resources or the methods to be able to respond sufficiently quickly to an incident.
  Angela Eagle: I would refute some of what the hon. Gentleman said about the HSE's response rate. It responded very quickly in this case when it was told that there had been an incident.
  I want to move on to the way in which the structures operate both in the workplace and in the more difficult cases in which members of public may have been affected and there is no obvious structure within which to ensure that there is reporting.
  If anyone believes that pesticides or veterinary medicine have caused harm, they should report the incident immediately. A guidance leaflet is being issued to enable the public to know how and in what circumstances they should report, and copies are available.
  The Health and Safety Executive treats reports of ill health extremely seriously. Its inspectors are instructed to investigate those associated with pesticides or sheep dipping, and they take enforcement action when it is called for. In the four years between 1992 and 1996, about 110 prosecutions were taken under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. The HSE's pesticides incidents appraisal panel will be informed if the product involved is found to be a pesticide and will then consider the likelihood that the reported ill health was caused by a pesticide.
  Where appropriate and where permission is given, the panel receives the result of any examination or investigation carried out by the national health service and others involved in the care of individuals. The panel's conclusions are contained in a pesticide incident report, which is published annually and from which the
  260
  hon. Member for Isle of Wight quoted. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it might be helpful if I spend a moment clarifying the role of the panel.
  The function of the panel is simply to judge the likelihood of an ill-health incident being related to pesticide use and identify trends so that regulators can, if necessary, take the kind of action that I described earlier. Decisions on whether there has been any breach of the law are taken by those investigating the incident. It is not the role of the panel to give a definitive verdict in the way in which a court of law would. Thus, for regulators, "likely" verdicts are every bit as valuable as "confirmed" ones. The panel's classification scheme is designed to support the function of reporting back to those authorities that issue licences. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight are a sign, not of inadequacy but of proper conclusions carefully reached on the basis of available evidence. The fact that some of the 1996–97 cases are still pending indicates not tardiness but the thoroughness with which the investigation is carried out.
  Dr. Brand: Will the Minister give way?
  Angela Eagle: I am anxious to make some detailed points on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised and this is a time-limited debate, but if he is bursting to intervene again, I will allow him to do so.
  Dr. Brand: I am very grateful to the Minister. I am afraid that we have drifted off the point. My point is that 81 investigations, no matter how thorough, are not statistically adequate to draw conclusions on trend. I am looking for investigation and reporting of people before they become grievously ill so that we can have a much wider debate on safety, not necessarily the harm that some of these things do.
  Angela Eagle: We have to establish that an incident has occurred. That is the first thing to say. If I may deal with what happens in a workplace—this involves agricultural activities as well as factories—employers and the self-employed are legally required to report to the HSE certain injuries, diseases and conditions and dangerous occurrences which arise from work activities. Pesticide approval holders are required to tell the regulator if any relevant information on product safety comes to light such as reports of adverse reactions or results of new research. It is important to know that employees and the public are able to report incidents direct to the HSE, which stands ready to respond. In essence, it has to wait for reports to be made to it. Members of the public can report directly to the HSE. The bulk of complaints currently received originate from that source.
  We do not in this instance believe that new legislation which creates further notification requirements is the right way to encourage reports. Duties would need to be placed on either the public or health professionals to report. As such, it would be very difficult to enforce. Employers and those who operate in workplaces already have a duty to notify.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned the yellow card scheme and suggested that it would be a good method to follow for notification. However, the yellow

  261
  card scheme for medicines is not a good parallel. The doctor in this case is the person who administers the drug and the only direct observer of its unforeseen effects. In the case of an alleged exposure to a pesticide, the doctor will rarely be in a position to assess the circumstances of use or exposure or, in many cases, the identity of the chemical that is possibly involved. It is not the only or even a principal way of investigating a case.
  The hon. Gentleman's scheme, similar to the yellow card scheme, which I believe he advocates, was tried. It was called the green card scheme and it was used in the early 1990s for a fixed-term trial to study pesticide-related illnesses. Unfortunately, after a trial run, we found that it did not generate additional data of a quality that would justify introducing it on a permanent basis.
  In any event, a work-related incident that has resulted in a person being admitted to hospital is already reportable under the Reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. We can also obtain some information on cases brought to the attention of hospitals and doctors through the Department of Health's hospital episodes statistics and the national poisons information service. Thus, the information available is not limited to that obtained through the pesticide incident appraisal panel.
  Nevertheless, I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about under-reporting. There can be little doubt that however good a scheme is, it is impotent if it is not being used and things are not being reported. Efforts are therefore being made to ensure that information about the schemes is available to members of the public and others, and that awareness is high. At the centre of that activity will be a revision of the leaflet that I mentioned earlier. The Health and Safety Executive has that work under way and proposes to consult interested parties very early in the process so that the leaflet meets the needs of its target audience and of those who need to report incidents. There will be also wide-ranging
  262
  consultation on how it might be most effectively distributed to, among others, the public and the medical profession.
  I cannot stress too strongly the important role that the public can play, but it is essential that they report incidents quickly and provide as much information as possible, ideally including—I realise that the world is not always ideal—the product's approval number. To delay or provide partial information seriously hinders the ability of the regulatory authorities to act.
  People who make reports must be prepared to accept that their ill-health may not be attributable to a pesticide or veterinary medicine as they believe. To accept that a pesticide or veterinary medicine was responsible without some form of assessments would not help the regulators or the individual concerned, the cause of whose ill-health would continue to be unknown.
  I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are sympathetic to his arguments by informing him that we have set up an interdepartmental group to consider existing schemes for monitoring pesticide-related ill-health with the aim of ensuring that they are being used by the regulatory authorities to their maximum effect. I accept that many points of contact and different levels of statistics exist at present. A representative of the group is proposing shortly to meet interested parties from outside Government to seek their views about the existing network of monitoring schemes.
  Despite what I said earlier about the so-called green card system, I have considerable sympathy with the notion that something like the yellow card system might, if properly designed, be a useful addition to the monitoring schemes already in place. I shall therefore write to the group suggesting that it once more goes over this ground and consider whether that possibility is worth examining again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Food)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give a breakdown of the country of origin of meat bought for the armed forces, in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [20243]

  (2) if he will ensure that all meat bought for the armed forces is of United Kingdom origin; and if he will make a statement. [20244]

  Mr. Spellar
  The procurement of food for the Armed Forces is contracted to Booker Foodservice which took over the contract from NAAFI on 1 October 1997. The Ministry of Defence does not specify the source from which Booker Foodservice should obtain meat, but expects it to seek the best market prices for these and all other products. It is required to give full consideration to British products. Booker Foodservice has advised the following estimate for the breakdown of country of origin for meat purchased for the Armed Forces, based on value, for the 12-month period ending September 1998:

  Per cent.

  Pork

  United Kingdom

  100

  Lamb

  New Zealand

  52

  Uruguay

  48

  Beef

  Australia

  30

  New Zealand

  24

  Uruguay

  22

  United Kingdom

  13

  Holland

  4

  Ireland

  4

  Brazil

  3

  These figures will be subject to variation dependent upon markets providing the best value for money.

  Chemical and Biologial Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are currently employed at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; and what plans he has for staffing levels over the next five years. [22514]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  158
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 13 January 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning numbers of staff employed at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down.
  The number of staff employed by CBD Porton Down was 588 at 1 December 1997.
  With respect to staffing levels over the next five years, on current plans we expect our numbers to remain fairly constant. However, these plans take no account of the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review which may affect our plans in either direction.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Lewisite
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Chemical Defence Establishment's evaluation of the effects of short-term exposure to lewisite. [22515]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 13 January 1998:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the evaluation of the effects of short term exposure to lewisite as this matter is my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  I have nothing to add to my letter to you of 20 August 1997 (Official Report dated 27 October col. 660) in which I said that lewisite is one of a group of chemical warfare agents known as vesicants or blistering agents. I also explained that DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector's evaluation, based on US human studies from the 1940s and continuing Porton Down animal studies, of the effects of short term exposure to lewisite are that both liquid and vapour forms result in chemical burns to the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Lewisite injuries are immediately painful. The potential for widespread damage to the internal organs is significant.

  Armed Forces (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the value of free board and loading to an employee expressed as an hourly pay rate. [22642]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to upgrade Hawk trainers with digital cockpits. [22692]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no plans to fit the RAF's Hawk aircraft with a digital cockpit.

  PR9 Canberra Reconnaissance Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the PR9 Canberra reconnaissance aircraft each came into service; what was their design life; and what is the date on which they are expected to leave service. [22696]
  159
  Mr. Spellar
  There are five Canberra Mk PR9 aircraft. The aircraft all entered service between 4 March 1959 and 4 August 1960. It is assessed that sufficient fatigue life remains on the Canberra Mk PR9 aircraft to enable them to achieve their predicted out of service date of 2003.

  System Requirements
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to sign a memorandum of understanding with the USA to combine the TRACER and Future Scout and Cavalry system requirements. [22695]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers are currently considering the case for signature early this year of a Memorandum of Understanding covering the combine TRACER/Future Scout and Cavalry System requirement. I will write to the hon. Member when a decision is made.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which EU standards on contaminated land have not been implemented by the United Kingdom Government. [22755]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no EU standards on contaminated land.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when his Department expects to complete a register of contaminated land; [22753]

  (2) when his Department expects to formulate a definition of contaminated land. [22754]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, (Ms Ellman) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 439. The legislation referred to in that answer provides a definition of contaminated land. The legislation will also place a duty on enforcing authorities to maintain registers of land which meet that definition. These registers will also contain prescribed particulars of enforcement action taken and of remediation works carried out.

  Inland Waterways
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment, Transport and the Regions how many inland waterway freight grants have been issued since 1981; and if he will list them by location and value.
  [22760]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  10 inland waterway freight grants have been awarded:

  £

  1983

  Millgate Investments, Gainsborough, Lincs

  369,340

  1984

  Varma Services Ltd., Deptford, London SE

  859,200

  160

  £

  1984

  Sheffield Haulage and Storage Ltd., Rotherham

  61,375

  1985

  West Country Fuels Ltd., Gloucester

  26,950

  1986

  Colwick Petroleum Ltd., Nr. Nottingham

  63,494

  1990

  Sand and Gravel Ltd., Leeds

  20,640

  1991

  Wimpey Hobbs Ltd., Greenwich, London SE

  402,832

  1993

  Huntsman Chemical Co. Ltd., Carrington, Manchester

  415,000

  1996

  Medway Shipping Ltd., Gillingham, Kent

  47,338

  1997

  J. J. Prior (Transport) Ltd., Fingringhoe, Essex

  121,410

  Waste Management
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review and update the waste management policies set out in the 1995 White Paper "Making Waste Work: A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Management in England and Wales". [23176]

  Mr. Meacher
  Reducing the waste we generate, making better use of waste, and ensuring that the remainder is disposed of safely, are all critical components of a more sustainable society. The Government set a high priority on improving our waste management. That is why I am announcing today the preparation of a new waste strategy for England and Wales.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have asked officials, working with the Environment Agency and other interested parties, to begin preparation of the new strategy which will fulfil the requirements of the Environment Act 1995. The first step towards this goal will be a wide public consultation beginning in the Spring of this year, leading to publication of a White Paper in 1999.

  The 1995 White Paper "Making Waste Work" set out the previous Government's policy framework for the management of waste, identified ways in which waste could be managed in a more sustainable way and set a number of targets for achieving that aim. It recognised the principles of the waste hierarchy and best practicable environmental option as being at the heart of waste policy, and set out a number of options by which central Government, local authorities, industry and commerce, the waste management industry, householders, and the voluntary and community sectors could help achieve that strategy's aims.

  This Government support the broad thrust of the policies set out in the 1995 White Paper but nevertheless believe that the time is now right for a comprehensive review of waste management in England and Wales. I am sure that this will be welcomed by all interested parties. They will want to know what our future priorities will be so that they can plan and invest for them.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Small Claims
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications to have
  161
  housing cases rescinded from the small claims procedure have been granted since the introduction of the higher small claims limit in January 1996. [21313]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) monitoring and (b) research his Department has undertaken into the impact on housing cases of the increase in the small claims limit from January 1996. [21315]

  Mr. Hoon
  Claims for possession, which form the overwhelming majority of housing cases, are excluded from the small claims regime. The collection of more detailed statistical information in relation to small claims was introduced by the Court Service in 1996 as part of the exercise in monitoring the effects of the rise in the limit to £3,000. One of the categories is "non-possession housing disputes". This Department has not undertaken any research specifically in connection with housing cases, however, a wider study of litigants' experiences of small claims by Professor John Baldwin was published in December 1997.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the impact on(a) the volume of legal aid certificates and (b) legal aid expenditure of the increase in the small claims limit made in January 1996. [21319]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is estimated that the increase in the small claims limit made on 1 January 1996, from £1,000 to £3,000, has resulted in a reduction of 18.8 per cent. in the number of certificates issued during 1996–97 for money claims (excluding personal injury claims).

  Certificates issued

  Year

  Money claims (excluding PI)

  Annual change (per cent.)

  1995–96

  148,364

  —

  1996–97

  120,492

  -18.8

  It is not possible to identify separately any overall savings resulting from the small claims limit.

  Money and Damages Claims
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the potential savings accruing from the removal of money and damages claims from the scope of legal aid. [21314]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our spending plans remain unaffected by the proposed removal of money and damages claims from the scope of legal aid. The aim is to use the existing budget better. Until we have reached final decisions on the types of case that are to be excluded and other matters of important detail the expenditure implications cannot be quantified. That will not be until we have completed the extensive consultation we are currently undertaking.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service (Management Functions) Act
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what delegations were made in 1997 under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992; to whom those delegations were made; and what were the main conditions attached to them. [23096]

  Dr. David Clark
  Since the last report to Parliament on, 14 January 1997,Official Report, columns 187–88, Ministers and statutory office holders in charge of departments' have been given delegated authority (from 1 April 1997) under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 to determine in respect of home civil servants in their respective departments the allowances for members of the Senior Civil Service.

  In some cases, for staff appointed by statutory office holders, the Minister for the Civil Service was statutorily required to give consent to terms and conditions of service. For such staff, delegation has been effected by waiving that requirement, subject to the conditions attaching to delegation.

  The delegation was subject to the condition that recipients comply with the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code as amended from time to time. Copies of the Civil Service Management Code are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  A similar authorisation was also made to the Health and Safety Executive. This came into effect on 12 May 1997 and was similarly subject to the condition that they comply with the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code as amended for time to time.

  1The statutory office holders are:

  Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

  Head of the Registry of Friendly Societies, being the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and the First Commissioner of the Building Societies Commission;

  Chief Charity Commissioner;

  Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

  Crown Estate Commissioners;

  Director General of Electricity Supply;

  Director General of Fair Trading;

  Director General of Gas Supply;

  Director General of National Lottery;

  Director of National Savings;

  Director of Passenger Rail Franchising;

  Director General of Telecommunication;

  Director General of Water Services;

  Director of Public Prosecutions;

  Director of the Serious Fraud Office;

  Government Actuary;

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales;

  International Rail Regulator;

  Public Works Loan Commissioners;

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioners;

  Rail Regulator;

  Registrar General for Scotland.

WALES

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to raise standards in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy in Wales. [22861]

  Mr. Hain
  Responses to our White Paper "Building Excellent Schools Together" have strongly endorsed the Government's overriding emphasis on strengthening the basic skills of literacy and numeracy and the targets set for attainment in the core subjects in primary schools. The broad purpose and content of the curriculum in Wales—notably as regards the Welsh language and the Curriculum Cymreig—is also well understood and appreciated. The responses did, however, show that many teachers are concerned about overload within the curriculum taught in primary schools in Wales and feel that this might work against the drive to improve standards of literacy and numeracy.

  I take these concerns very seriously and I have therefore asked for urgent advice from the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales (ACCAC) on ways in which the curriculum might be slimmed down in a way which reflects the distinctive nature of the curriculum in Wales. I have also written to every primary school head teacher to emphasise the Government's commitment to the targets set in the White Paper and to explain what I have asked ACCAC to do.

  In the light of the responses to the White Paper, I want to be sure that the position of Welsh and more generally of the Curriculum Cymreig have been weighed along with our broader objectives to ensure rigorous standards of teaching and learning together with a sound progression into secondary school education. I do not assume that a reduction in overload would of itself result in a better use of available time and I have, therefore, asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to provide further guidance to deal with this point.

  I expect to receive advice by March. I will then set out an agenda for action and will consult teachers and others before changes are introduced. This timetable will allow for the option of modifying the Welsh curriculum from September 1998 in line with the announcement today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Copies of my letters to head teachers and ACCAC have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Summer Schools
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children took part in the summer school scheme in 1997; and what estimate he has made of the number taking part in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [20101]

  Mr. Hain
  A total of 736 children took part in the 1997 Wales Summer Literacy Programme. Provision for expansion is being made. The Scheme is to be extended to every authority for 1998 and they are currently working up their delivery plans.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the summer school scheme in 1997; and what estimate he has made of the cost in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [20100]
  164
  Mr. Hain
  The 1997 pilot programme was implemented as a joint initiative between Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). Seedcorn funding of £75,000 was provided by the Welsh Office.

  Subject to Parliamentary approval there will be £220,000 available through the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme in 1998–99. Provision beyond 1999 is the subject of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Chiropody and Podiatry Services
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the budget for each trust in Wales for NHS chiropody and podiatry services in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1994–95. [22542]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Figures on NHS Trust budgets are not available centrally. Expenditure on community chiropody services by NHS Trusts in Wales for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 is given in the table. Expenditure for 1997–98 is not yet available.

  £000

  NHS Trust1

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  Bridgend and District

  238

  n/a

  n/a

  Cardiff Community

  722

  634

  2967

  Carmarthen and District

  185

  185

  180

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  117

  111

  107

  Clwydian Community Care

  760

  751

  656

  Glan y Mor

  1,022

  n/a

  n/a

  Gwent Community

  843

  848

  811

  Gwynedd Community

  569

  464

  392

  Llandough Hospital

  259

  213

  n/a

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  239

  220

  232

  Pembrokeshire

  246

  234

  301

  Powys Healthcare

  375

  347

  462

  Rhondda Healthcare

  28

  75

  120

  All Wales total

  5,603

  4,082

  3,261

  1Source: Annual financial returns of NHS Trusts, (not audited).

  2:Source: Annual financial returns of health authority directly managed unit, (not audited).

  n/a = not available.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) financial, (b) food and (c) medical aid has been given by Her Majesty's Government to Sri Lanka since 1 January. [21891]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The total expenditure on bilateral assistance given to Sri Lanka in 1997 by Her Majesty's Government was about £6 million. This included some assistance to projects in the health sector; in particular for a project to improve health of mothers and children displaced by civil conflict. No food aid was provided.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding unpaid
  165
  claims there were for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 on 1 January 1998; and what was the average delay between claim and payment for categories A, B and C on that date. [22210]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: On 1 January 1998, there were 20,779 claims awaiting processing under Options A and B and 9,628 claims awaiting processing under Option C, the great majority of which are mixed claims on which the Option A and B elements have been paid. The average turn round time between receipt of claims from the police and processing of Options A and B was 19 weeks. Regular processing of Option C claims is expected to begin later this month.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make payment for the confiscated pistols of C. J. A. Foules, West Charleston Grange, near Kingsbridge, Devon. [22527]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Claims under the Firearms Compensation Scheme are dealt with in the order in which they are received from the police. This claim was received on 23 September 1997, towards the end of the three month hand-in period, and is defective, in that the claimant has declined to sign the required declaration relinquishing ownership of the surrendered weapons. Until this is done, no payment can be made. The claim is therefore being returned for completion.

  Special Constables
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) of 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 292, on compensation for special constables, for what reasons he does not plan to consult organisations representing business and industry on his proposals for new regulations governing the Special Constabulary. [22215]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: We have not consulted organisations representing business and industry because the proposals contained in the consultation papers do not have direct implications for these sectors. If, as a result of the consultations with the police and local authority associations and the special constabulary, the proposals are revised so that they do have such implications, then we shall, of course, consult these organisations.

  Common Travel Area
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the efficacy of the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in relation to immigration matters and asylum. [22545]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Common Travel Area is an important part of our immigration control arrangements, recognising geographical proximity and shared close interests. Its operation is kept under constant review.

  Lottery Draws
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has published the draft Bill to restrict the frequency of lottery draws. [23094]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I published the draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill on 7 January for comments by 30 January.

  This follows my announcement on 13 November that the Government intend to introduce legislation seeking to restrict the frequency of on-line lottery draws under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976.

  The draft Bill restricts the frequency of such draws to one a day on any particular premises in Great Britain.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ms Mary Allen
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the bonuses, benefits and pay of Ms Mary Allen during her time at the Arts Council. [20776]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The table gives details of Ms Allen's remuneration for the time that she was at the Arts Council. From 1995–96 onwards, these figures were published in the Arts Council's annual reports.1 June 1992–31 August 1992 Temporary contract
  1 September 1992–31 March 1994 Deputy Secretary-General
  1 April 1994–23 May 1997 Secretary General

  £

  Financial year

  Salary

  Pension costs

  Other

  Total

  1992–93

  31,805

  3,100

  —

  34,905

  1993–94

  48,676

  5,549

  —

  54,225

  1994–95

  60,509

  7,987

  —

  68,496

  1995–96

  62,446

  8,242

  —

  70,688

  1996–97

  63,806

  5,615

  —

  69,421

  1997–981

  25,819

  1,487

  2750

  28,056

  Total

  293,061

  31,980

  750

  325,791

  1 Payment in lieu of notice was agreed at £5,000 a month (for three months), the second and third payment being subject to her not taking up remunerated employment in those periods.

  2 This was a contribution to legal costs.

  Sport (Lottery Funds)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Government and lottery money was allocated to cricket through(a) the Sports Council and (b) other mechanisms in each of the last five years. [22255]

  Mr. Banks
  I have been advised by the English Sports Council and Sportsmatch that the sums are as follows:
  167

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 (to date)

  Totals

  (a) GB/English Sports Council1

  Grant-In-Aid

  169,344

  200,000

  220,000

  375,000

  2241,700

  1,036,700

  Lottery Sports Fund

  —

  —

  6,738,380

  22,597,283

  318,500,222

  47,835,885

  (b) Other mechanisms

  Sportsmatch4

  248,192

  274,300

  385,498

  325,901

  126,405

  1,360,296

  Totals

  417,536

  474,300

  7,343,878

  23,298,184

  18,868,327

  50,402,225

  1 The English Sports Council was established on 1 January 1997.

  2 The 1997–98 Grant-In-Aid figure is provisional and awaiting approval.

  3 The 1997–98 Lottery Sports Fund figure includes a World Class Performance grant of £157,379 for women's cricket.

  4 Sportsmatch awards are matched by similar amounts from business sponsors.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been received from the National Lottery for sports funding since November 1994. [21393]

  Mr. Banks
  From November 1994 to December 1997, the Sports Councils for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have received in total £950.3 million of Lottery money to fund sports projects of which £768.8 million has already been awarded. In addition the Millennium Commission has made two awards to sports related projects totalling £69 million.

  Information on Lottery awards is now available on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Lottery Funding (Scotland)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the date, value and recipient of each award of Lottery funding to good causes in Scotland. [22416]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: As at 31 December 1997, 4,105 Lottery awards worth £498,679,648 have been made to organisations and individuals in Scotland. A full list will be placed in the Library.

  Details of Lottery awards can be found on the Department's internet website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Football Trust
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who was responsible for selecting the new Chairman-designate of the Football Trust; how many candidates were considered; what was the process of interviewing and consultation prior to the announcement;and what will be the remuneration of the Chairman-designate. [22668]

  Mr. Banks
  The appointment of the Chairman-designate of the Football Trust was wholly a matter for the Trustees. I was consulted by Trustees on their nomination of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), as the Trust Deed provides, and was very pleased to be able to support that nomination. My hon. Friend has considerable experience of all aspects of football and is widely acknowledged as a key figure in sports policy making. I understand the question of remuneration is to be considered at the first meeting of the new Trust. I would like to pay tribute to 168
  the excellent work Lord Aberdare has done as Chairman of the Football Trust since 1979, and to wish my hon. Friend well when he succeeds Lord Aberdare shortly.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what statutory basis he has ordered the diversion of money from the National Lottery to causes other than those originally approved by Parliament. [22574]

  Mr. Banks
  No funds have been diverted from the existing good causes. Funds continue to be allocated between the existing five good causes according to the percentages approved by Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1 October 1997 that, from 14 October, and with the agreement of existing Lottery distributors, "shadow" accounts would be maintained, setting aside funds for the New Opportunities Fund and NESTA on the basis of the proposed percentage shares outlined in the National Lottery Bill. The existing distributors are planning their commitments and expenditure on the basis of these "shadow" accounts. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the relevant provisions of the Bill, resources will be transferred to the New Opportunities Fund and NESTA in line with these accounts after Royal Assent. If the legislation were not passed, for whatever reason, the funds would simply remain in the accounts of the existing distributors, as currently provided.

TREASURY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's preferred method for companies to interface with the Inland Revenue for millennium computer compliance; and if he will make a statement. [21892]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has adopted a "no change" policy for handling Year 2000 dates across interfaces between its computer systems and those of other organisations, including companies, so that current protocols will continue to apply in the new millennium.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend beyond seven years the period within which gifts between individuals are free of inheritance tax. [22238]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps under review all aspects of the tax system to ensure that it continues to meet the Government's objectives.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many works of art, on which there is conditional exemption of inheritance tax by virtue of public access, are on the Inland Revenue's register; and what was the figure in 1992. [22237]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In December 1997 there were 19,716 items listed on the Register of conditionally exempt works of art and other objects and the estimated figure for December 1992 is about 8,500.

  Guernsey Trusts
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information the Inland Revenue receives from the Guernsey authorities about(a) the deeds, (b) trustees and (c) letters of wishes of trusts established in Guernsey with discretionary beneficiaries in the United Kingdom.[22588]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: The exchange of information between the UK and Guernsey tax authorities is governed by the provisions of Article 10 of our Double Taxation Arrangement with Guernsey (S.I. 1952 No. 1215).

  Paymaster General
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which EU meetings in Brussels the Paymaster General(a) has represented and (b) plans to represent the UK. [22278]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Treasury European issues are not the responsibility of the Paymaster General. He has never represented the UK at any EU meeting in Brussels and he has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the Permanent Secretary received the documentation in support of the assurances made to him by the Paymaster General in respect of the Orion Trust; and what assessment he has made of that documentation; [22814]

  (2) if he will publish the questions upon which the Paymaster General sought advice from Sir Terrence Burns about his personal financial affairs. [22345]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: On his appointment as a Minister, the Paymaster General sought advice about his personal financial affairs from his solicitors, Titmuss Sainer Dechert, and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. In line with the Ministerial Code, his beneficial interests have been placed in a blind trust.

  Government Actuary's Department
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the cash limit and net running cost limit for the Government Actuary's Department for 1997–98. [22971]

  Mr. Darling
  The net running cost limit for the Government Actuary's Department, Class XVI, Vote 12, will be decreased by £120,000 from £384,000 to £264,000 and the cash limit will be reduced by £120,000 from £604,000 to £484,000. The decrease follows the breach of the net running cost limit in 1996–97. The Government Actuary's Department has reviewed its systems and procedures to prevent a recurrence of the breach.

SCOTLAND

  Falkirk College (Grants)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Student Awards Agency for Scotland to ensure that all eligible students at Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education receive payment of their grants before Christmas. [20486]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: I have been monitoring the progress made by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland since it became clear that there were delays in the payment of student grants for academic year 1997–98.

  The Agency is confident that all new students at Falkirk College who submitted properly completed applications by mid November would have had them processed before Christmas.

  Pre-employment Courses
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request the Scottish Qualifications Authority to consider certificating pre-employment courses. [22271]

  Mr. Wilson
  All existing SQA courses and awards, to varying degrees, prepare people for employment. Academic qualifications such as Standard Grades, Highers and CSYS provide a foundation of knowledge in preparation for later life. Work-related qualifications such as National Certificate, HNC and HND combine knowledge and practical experience in a wide range of subject areas to prepare for employment. Work-based Scottish Vocational Qualifications (SVQs), which are assessed in workplace conditions and recognise that individuals are competent for specific occupations, can in certain situations also be taken in preparation for employment.

  Broadly-based General SVQs were introduced in Scotland in 1991 specifically to assist people acquire the skills and knowledge required for employment, incorporating core skills in communication, numeracy, information technology, personal and interpersonal skills, and problem solving. The GSVQ concept, to be known as Scottish Group Awards, is being incorporated in the new Higher Still structure which, in 1999–2000, will reform the existing Highers, CSYS and National Certificate.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will phase in the changes in the method of calculating the funding of further education colleges, so that they will not take full effect until August 1999. [22267]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have yet to take decisions on changing the funding methodology for further education colleges, in light of responses to consultations following a recent review. When we do, we shall wish to consider appropriate transitional arrangements, including the possibility of phased introduction of certain elements.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on GDP per capita in relation to(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) the United Kingdom for each year since 1978–79. [22414]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Provisional data for 1996, together with information for 1986 to 1995 will be published in an article called "Regional Accounts 1996 Part 1" in the January edition of the Office for National Statistics Publication, "Economic Trends". This will be available from the House of Commons Library from 15 January. Data for earlier years are currently available from the Library.

  Data covering years to 1995, now about to be revised, were published in the January/February 1997 edition of "Economic Trends".

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the average class sizes in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Scotland. [22418]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: The information is as follows:

  Education Authority Schools

  Average number of pupils per class September1

  Primary2

  Secondary

  1978–79

  24.9

  19.4

  1979–80

  23.9

  18.9

  1980–81

  23.8

  19.0

  1981–82

  23.8

  19.1

  1982–83

  23.8

  19.0

  1983–84

  25.3

  19.5

  1984–85

  25.2

  n/a

  1985–863

  n/a

  n/a

  1986–87

  n/a

  n/a

  1987–88

  24.9

  18.8

  1989–90

  24.7

  18.6

  1991–92

  24.7

  18.9

  1993–94

  24.7

  19.3

  1995–96

  24.8

  19.5

  1 Since 1983 for secondary schools and 1987 for primary schools, this information has only been collected biennially.

  2 Until the 1983 School Census, classes for small numbers of primary pupils withdrawn for short periods of time from their normal classes were included in the calculation of average class size. From 1983, all pupils were counted against their normal class for statistical purposes.

  3 Information for 1985–86 and 1986–87 is unavailable because of industrial action in some schools.

  Capita
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with Capita. [22406]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no meetings with Capita.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much it will cost to cancel the Government's contract with Capita following the abolition of the Nursery Voucher Scheme. [22380]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: The amount of the termination fee the Government have negotiated with Capita is commercial in confidence.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of small businesses in Scotland. [22393]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: There is no single official definition of a small business. For Scotland, the best guide to trends in the number of small businesses is given by the number of VAT-registered enterprises.

  VAT registered businesses: Scotland, 1980–961, 2

  Stock at start of year

  1980

  100,015

  1981

  100,965

  1982

  102,715

  1983

  103,785

  1984

  106,000

  1985

  108,210

  1986

  109,735

  1987

  111,485

  1988

  113,165

  1989

  115,455

  1990

  119,090

  1991

  122,770

  1992

  119,140

  1993

  118,755

  1994

  119,825

  1995

  118,610

  1996

  117,785

  1997

  118,125

  Notes:

  1Large increases in the threshold for VAT registration in 1991 and 1993 mean that the estimates for 1980–91, 1992–93 and 1994–96 are not entirely comparable.

  2Figures for 1980–93 count VAT reporting units. Figures for 1994–96 count whole VAT registered enterprises.

  Source:

  DTI Statistical Bulletin, "Business Start-ups and closures: VAT registrations and deregistrations 1980–96".

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the membership and remit of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. [23095]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 14 November 1997 his intention to establish an all party Consultative Steering Group to take forward consideration of how the Scottish Parliament might operate.
  173
  I am delighted to report that all the main political parties have agreed to participate in the Group. Their agreement to come together to contribute to the development of ideas at this early stage augurs well for the future of the Parliament and the political process in Scotland.

  The Group, which I will chair, will comprise the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), or their representatives, representing the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party, Mr. Paul Cullen QC, representing the Scottish Conservative Party, Mr. Keith Geddes CBE from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Canon Kenyon Wright, from the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Professor Alice Brown, from the Department of Politics, University of Edinburgh, Dr. Joan Stringer, Principal of Queen Margaret's College, Ms Joyce McMillan, a writer and journalist who chaired the Constitutional Commission, Ms Esther Roberton of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Mrs. Deirdre Hutton, Scottish Consumer Council, Mr. Andrew Cubie, a lawyer and former chair of the CBI in Scotland, and Mr. Campbell Christie, General Secretary of the STUC.

  These individuals, who cover a wide range of relevant Scottish interests, have been chosen for the personal contributions they can make to the work of the Group. I am confident that this Group will work effectively to develop proposals for how the Scottish Parliament should operate and how it will relate to the Scottish public.

  The Group will be supported by Scottish Office officials who will be able to draw in advice from a number of expert panels in the relevant fields in preparing proposals for further consideration by the Consultative Steering Group. These will include expert panels on Parliamentary procedures, on the scrutiny of financial matters, on how the Parliament might make best use of IT and telematics and on broadcasting and related media arrangements.

  The Group will meet for the first time on Monday 19 January, when members will be asked to approve the following draft remit:
  To bring together views on and consider the operational needs and working methods of the Scottish Parliament.
  To develop proposals for the rules of procedure and Standing Orders which the Parliament might be invited to adopt.
  To prepare a report to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the end of 1998, to inform the preparation of draft Standing Orders.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Information Technology
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the demand on IT specialists and systems of the Government's legislative 174
  programme other than that caused by preparations for EMU and the year 2000 computer date change problem. [19612]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: A Compliance Cost Assessment is required for any Bill which has cost implications for Business, Charities and Voluntary Organisations and should include any IT Costs.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the executive functions of the Privy Council. [22261]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Privy Council approves amendments to the byelaws and statutes of Chartered institutions. It also approves rules made by the statutory registration councils responsible for the medical and certain other professions, and makes instruments of government for higher education corporations. In addition, it makes certain appointments to statutory bodies and to the governing bodies of universities and colleges.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the Committees of the Privy Council, the number of times each has met since May and the quorum in each case. [22262]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The standing Committees of the Privy Council are:

  The Judicial Committee;

  The Universities Committee;

  The Scottish Universities Committee;

  The Committee for the purposes of the Crown Office Act 1877;

  The Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey;

  The Baronetage Committee;

  The Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.

  None of these Committees has met since May 1997 other than the Judicial Committee, which has sat throughout the Easter, Trinity and Michaelmas terms, and the Honours Committee, which has met three times. The quorum for the Judicial Committee is three. No quorum is stipulated for the Honours Committee.

  In addition, ad hoc Committees are constituted when required. None has met since last May.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what further plans he has to ensure that priority is given to the basics of literacy and numeracy within the primary curriculum. [22798]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am announcing today plans that will free up primary teachers' time so that they can give a clear priority to the teaching of literacy and numeracy and to meeting our literacy and numeracy targets. From September 1998 the priorities in the primary curriculum will be English and mathematics. The position of science, information technology and religious education will remain unchanged.
  175
  Schools will still need to offer a balanced and broadly based curriculum and to that end will be required to have regard to the other National Curriculum subjects of art, design and technology, geography, history, music and physical education. Key stage 1 and Key stage 2 statutory requirements will be modified so that primary schools have more flexibility in how they teach these subjects. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) will give schools advice shortly after Easter on how they can achieve this.

  I have asked QCA to conduct consultations on these proposals this term; and intend to lay new statutory Orders for the six non-core subjects in the summer.
  176
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the universities in the United Kingdom which now provide tuition in remedial English for students unable to write to an appropriate standard. [22614]

  Dr. Howells
  Individual universities and colleges are responsible for assessing the skills and tuition needs of their students. Information on supplementary tuition for students who need to improve their communication skills is not available centrally. The Department is committed to improving literacy and other key skills at all levels of the education system, and has supported a number of projects to develop key skills in higher education.

  Project Work
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants have been referred to project work in each quarter since April 1996; and how many of these have had their benefit cut for (i) two weeks and (ii) four weeks for failure to attend or complete their work placement. [21519]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under it's Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 13 January 1998.
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of individuals referred to Project Work in each quarter since April 1996; and how many of these have had their benefit cut for (i) two weeks and (ii) four weeks, for failure to attend or complete their work placement. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency. I would like to apologise to you for the delay in supplying the information you have asked for.
  Unfortunately, information is not available in precisely the format you have requested. Statistics on referrals to the work experience element of Project Work—as opposed to starts on this element of the programme—were not collected for the original pilots in Hull and Medway and Maidstone which began in April 1996, and it is not now possible to collect this information retrospectively
  However, the figures in Table 1 set out the number of starts on the work experience element of Project Work and the number of cases referred for adjudication for refusal and failure to attend Project Work in the two pilot areas. The figures do not include people who left the register between being referred to the work experience element of Project Work and their planned date of starting. The first referrals to the work experience element of Project Work were not made until 22 July 1996.

  Table 1

  Quarter ending

  Number of jobseekers who started project work

  Number of jobseekers referred to adjudication

  September 1996

  658

  44

  December 1996

  1,315

  229

  March 1997

  1,152

  223

  Statistics on referrals to the work experience element of Project Work were collected for the extended pilots and I am therefore able to supply you with the number of people referred to the work experience element of Project Work from 1 April 1997. This information is contained in Table 2 below. Although the extended pilots started in February 1997 referrals to the work experience element in these areas did not begin until July 1997. The figures in Table 2 for the June quarter relate, therefore, only to Hull and Medway and Maidstone where Project Work was already in operation.

  Table 2

  Quarter ending

  Number of Jobseekers who were referred to Project Work

  June 1997

  1,482

  September 1997

  13,727

  December 1997

  15,726

  With the introduction of the extended Project Work Pilots separate figures for referrals to adjudication resulting from referrals to Project Work were not collected. Information on the total number of Adjudication Officers' decisions and opinions and disallowance rates relating to all government employment training programmes is
  178
  contained in a published document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". This provides information on all the labour market entitlement and sanction questions arising on claims. The latest information available is up to September 1997. Copies of this document are held in the Library of the House.
  Table 3 contains the number of sanctions and disallowances imposed and opinions given from the introduction of JSA in October 1996 for:

  giving up a place on a training scheme or employment programme;

  refusal of a place on a training scheme or employment programme;

  neglect to avail of a place on a training scheme or employment programme;

  failure to attend on a training scheme or employment programme; and

  losing a place on a training scheme or employment programme through misconduct.

  Schemes and programmes included in this definition are Jobplan Workshops, Restart Courses, Workwise, Worklink and Project Work. Employment Service statistics do not identify the number of sanctions relating to each programme, nor do they differentiate between tow and four week sanctions or disallowances.

  Table 3

  Quarter ending

  Sanctions and disallowances imposed and opinions given

  December 1996

  5,193

  March 1997

  12,284

  June 1997

  10,961

  September 1997

  11,294

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what have been the destinations of(a) claimants leaving or completing project work and (b) claimants in the selected control areas broken down to show those (i) in full-time employment, (ii) in self-employment, (iii) in part-time employment, (iv) in full-time education or training course, (v) on another Government programme, (vi) unemployed and claiming jobseekers's allowance, (vii) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (viii) in receipt of another benefit and (ix) doing something else. [21517]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 13 January 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the destinations of (a) individuals leaving or completing Project Work and (b) individuals in the selected control areas broken down to show those (i) in full-time employment, (ii) in self-employment, (iii) in part-time employment, (iv) in full-time education or training course, (v) on another Government programme, (vi) unemployed and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, (vii) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (viii) in receipt of another benefit and (ix) doing something else. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency. I would like to apologise to you for the delay in supplying the information you have asked for.
  Unfortunately, information is not available in precisely the format you have requested. Information on the destinations of Project Work participants at a national level is given in Tables 1 and 2. The figures

  179
  refer to the period July-November 1997. Information on the two Project Work pilots in Hull and Medway and Maidstone is given in Table 3 for the period March 1996–June 1997.
  It may help if I explain that before entering the work experience element of Project Work, clients are given a Restart Interview following by a 13 week period of intensive job search help. During this time, participants are offered the full range of programmes available to long-term unemployed people, as well as a number of interviews with an adviser. If the person is still unemployed at the end of this period of intensive help, they are required to attend a 13 week period of work experience. This is intended to focus on the participant's job goals and work experience that is of benefit to the local community.
  Project Work was initially piloted in two locations during 1996–97, and was expanded subsequently to cover 31 locations. There are no selected control areas for expanded Project Work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  PROJECT WORK

  Table 1: Outcomes from 13 week period of intensive job search help: (from Restart Interview to work experience referral interview): July 1997-November 1997

  Jobs1

  Training for Work (TfW)

  Transfers to other benefits

  5,224

  2,210

  2,353

  1 ES placings including full-time, part-time and self-employed vacancies.

  Table 2: Outcomes from 13 week period of work experience: July 1997-November 1997

  Jobs1

  Full time education

  Full time Training/TfW

  1,210

  39

  259

  1 This includes full-time and part-time employment and self-employed.

  Table 3: Outcomes from the Project Work Pilots: March 1996-June 1997

  Jobs

  Full time education and training

  Other benefit

  Other reasons

  Pilots

  761

  87

  409

  444

  Control

  424

  79

  188

  235

  Further Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the total level of his Department"s budget, in 1995–96 prices, for further education in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; what such figurers would be for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99 on the basis of the estimates of the gross domestic product deflator contained in the November 1996 Budget; and if he will make a statement. [22109]

  Dr. Howells
  The total level of the Department"s budget for further education in 1997–98 at 1995–96 prices is £2.973 billion. Planned provision for 1998–99 at 1995–96 prices is £2.870 billion. Comparable figures using the GDP deflators contained in the November 1996 Budget are £3.001 billion and £2.920 billion respectively.
  180
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on per capita funding levels in further education of the measures contained in his announcement of 12 November. [22111]

  Dr. Howells
  Part of the additional funding available to the further education sector is to restrict the squeeze on unit costs in the 1998–99 teaching year to no more than the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the expenditure per student on capital projects within the further education sector for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [22113]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not yet available.

  Figures for individual colleges' capital expenditure in 1996–97 will not be available until January 1998 as the information is taken from colleges' audited accounts which are received by Further Education Funding Council on 30 November 1997. Figures for capital expenditure in subsequent years will follow a similar timetable.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the additional administrative responsibilities placed on current facilities and infrastructure in colleges in further education by recent schemes announced by Her Majesty's Government; what provision he has made for additional administrative responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [22108]

  Dr. Howells
  It will be for Further Education colleges to assess the additional administrative responsibilities and costs when bidding for funds made available through these schemes.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies he has commissioned on the relative costs of providing further education in urban and rural areas. [22667]

  Dr. Howells
  None. The Further Education Funding Council has recently consulted on a funding methodology for colleges in 1998–99 in order to reflect the need to widen participation in further education in all areas, whether rural or urban.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he proposes to publish draft regulations governing the detailed application of the new rules for finance of students in further and higher education. [21915]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer issued 22 December 1997]: The rules applying to maintenance grants and tuition fees in 1998–99 will be set out in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1998, which we plan to lay before the House as soon as possible.

  Provisions relating to income contingent student loans are contained in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. The associated regulations will be laid before the House once the Bill receives Royal Assent in line with normal practice. We are taking steps to ensure that hon. Members

  181
  are fully informed about how the proposed arrangements will operate in detail in advance of the publication of the regulations.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to move to a new system of public expenditure planning by 2001–02 on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Dearing Report relating to resource accounting. [22373]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's proposal to move to a system of full resource accounting and budgeting in 2001–02 will result in a different treatment of student loans from grants. This will be consistent with the recommendation by the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22674]

  Dr. Howells
  There are 162 secure cycle spaces on DfEE HO sites.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for the inspection of independent schools; what will be the role of Ofsted in such inspection; what representations he has received about the inspection of independent schools; and if he will make a statement. [22532]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 Janaury 1998]: Independent schools in England are currently inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectors (HMI) from Ofsted on a broadly 5-year cycle, and periodically by local fire brigades and—in the case of boarding schools—by local social services departments. Newly registered schools, or those causing concern, are inspected mor frequently and at least annually. Save in exceptional cases, these inspections do not normally lead to published reports.

  Discussions are under way with the independent school organisations on proposals to develop their own inspection arrangements so as to yield regular published reports consistent with the inspection framework and standards operated by Ofsted. This would allow Ofsted to concentrate more on strengthened inspection with published reports on schools which are not covered by those arrangements and which include pupils assisted from public funds. We will announce the new arrangements when they are finalised.

  Additionally our Green Paper "Excellence for all children: Meeting Special Educational Needs" proposes that all independent schools that provide specifically for children with Special Education Needs, but are not approved for this purpose under section 347(1) of the Eduction Act 1996, should be inspected at least every five years by HMI. Independent schools approved under that section are already inspected by Ofsted in the same way as maintained schools.

  New Deal (South Devon)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what budget he has agreed for the estates element of the South Devon District New Deal Delivery plan. [22541]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for 18 to 24–year-olds does not commence in the South Devon District until 1 April 1998. At this stage no budget has been agreed for estates work in that District. The needs of the South Devon offices will be assessed in the near future and an appropriate budget agreed for any changes required.

  Republic of Ireland (Educational and Cultural Co-operation)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he plans to make to Irish Government proposals for a Programme and Joint Management Structure for youth exchanges between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. [22506]

  Dr. Howells
  A joint working party is being established to define the range and content of the youth exchange programme and to decide how it will operate. The Department will appoint representatives.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he plans to make to the proposal from the Irish Government for a joint forum to facilitate discussion and co-operation in educational matters. [22501]

  Dr. Howells
  Following the joint statement issued by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on 12 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment met the Irish Minister of Education and Science, Mr. Michael Martin TD, on 17 December. They agreed that there should be regular contact between officials of their Departments to discuss ways of enhancing teaching and learning through new technologies.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many meetings of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council Working Group on Education and Culture have taken place in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [22565]

  Dr. Howells
  The Working Group on Education and Culture has met five times during the last three years, on 3 February 1995, 26 April 1996, 7 February 1997, 8 May 1997 and 14 November 1997. The Working Group provides a valuable forum for the discussion of Anglo-Irish co-operation in the fields of education and culture.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many projects his Department funds under the Leonardo vocational training programme which involve Irish organisations. [22505]

  Dr. Howells
  During the first three years of the Leonardo da Vinci vocational training programme, UK organisations have led 757 transnational projects of which 149 involve partners from the Republic of Ireland. The Leonardo da Vinci programme is funded by the European Community, not the DfEE, and runs from 1995–99.
  183
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many meetings his Department has had with the Irish Department of Education in relation to the National Grid for Learning and the University for Industry. [22500]

  Dr. Howells
  There has been one formal meeting of officials in relation to the National Grid for learning and none in relation to the University for Industry.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students from the Republic of Ireland are studying at British universities; and how many are in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [22503]

  Dr. Howells
  Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency for the academic year 1996–97 showed that there were 14,550 students from the Republic of Ireland studying in higher education institutions in the UK, of whom 7,552 were studying in England, 1,570 in Scotland, 1,546 in Wales and 3,882 in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students from the Republic of Ireland are participating in further education in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [22504]

  Dr. Howells
  In 1995–96, the latest year for which data were available, there were 1,700 students from the Republic of Ireland studying in further education institutions in England.

  The numbers of such students studying in other parts of the United Kingdom are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he intends to take to encourage participation by English and Welsh schools in the European Studies Project. [22502]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government welcome the fact that a growing number of UK schools are forming partnerships with Irish schools through their participation in initiatives such as the European Studies Project and the EC SOCRATES programme. Following a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Irish Minister of Education and Science on 17 December 1997, the Government are considering whether there is a need for additional measures to encourage co-operation between educational institutions in the UK and in Ireland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many secure cycling spaces there are in his Department. [22676]

  Mr. Morley
  Many of the Department's 240 sites now provide secure accommodation for cycles. In our London HQ buildings there are about 100 spaces (some shared with other Departments) while the Department's HQ offices at York, Tolworth and Guildford have approximately 140 spaces between them. It is the 184
  Department's policy to provide secure cycle spaces where there is a demand for them and where this is physically possible.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much milk was(a) produced and (b) consumed in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [22528]

  Mr. Rooker
  1996 is the last year for which United Kingdom milk production and consumption figures are available. The figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom milk production, supply and utilisation: 1996

  Million litres

  Gross production of milk from the dairy and beef herds1

  14,224

  Imports of raw milk2

  111

  Exports of raw milk2

  173

  Total supply

  14,162

  Utilisation by dairies for drinking milk3

  6,806

  Utilisation by dairies for manufacturing dairy products4

  6,979

  Dairy wastage and stock change

  76

  Other uses5

  301

  Total domestic use

  14,162

  1 Includes 7 million litres of milk from the beef herd. Excludes suckled milk.

  2 Milk imported or exported as packaged drinking milk is excluded.

  3 Represents consumption of drinking milk in the UK, as little is imported or exported. In 1996 imports of packaged drinking milk were 41 million litres, exports were 53 million litres.

  4 A proportion of dairy products manufactured will be exported and not consumed in the UK.

  5 Includes farmhouse consumption, milk fed to stock and on farm waste. Excludes suckled milk.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much(a) fresh and (b) UHT milk was imported into the United Kingdom in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [22529]

  Mr. Rooker
  A total of 153,300 tonnes of milk were imported into the United Kingdom in the 12 months to the end of September 1997. Trade statistics do not distinguish between fresh and UHT milk.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission research into the operation of vertically integrated co-operatives for the dairy industry. [22447]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy relating to Milk Marque. [22448]

  Mr. Rooker
  Issues concerning Milk Marque's commercial operations and those of other companies in the dairy sector are a matter for the competition authorities.

  Beef
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the total United Kingdom consumption of beef and beef products was derived from home production in(a) 1972 and (b) 1997. [22489]
  185
  Mr. Rooker
  Home fed production of beef and veal as a proportion of new supplies was 78 per cent. in 1972 and 77 per cent. in the 12 months to September 1997.

  New supplies of beef and veal are defined as home fed production plus imports of carcase meat plus the meat equivalent of fat animals imported for direct slaughter minus exports of carcase meat minus the meat equivalent of live exports.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the per capita consumption of beef and beef products in(a) 1972 and (b) 1997. [22488]

  Mr. Rooker
  Per capita consumption of beef, beef sausages and corned beef in Great Britain measured by purchases for consumption at home in the National Food Survey is given in the following table:

  grams per person per week

  Purchases of

  1972

  1996–971

  Beef

  195

  109

  Beef sausages

  42

  15

  Corned beef

  13

  13

  1 October 1996 to September 1997. Beef here includes a very small element of veal.

  Data on the consumption of beef outside of the home and in the form of other processed products are not available. To help complete the picture, the table provides the total amount of beef available for domestic usage in 1996–97 and the nearest equivalent measure (total new supplies) for 1972–73. Domestic usage is derived as total UK production plus imports less exports and adjusted for stock changes. Total new supplies excludes the adjustment for stock changes.

  United Kingdom

  1972–73

  1996–971

  Total domestic usage of beef ('000 Tonnes)

  21,173

  840

  1 October 1996 to September 1997.

  2 Total new supplies in the period April 1972 to March 1973.

  Total domestic usage and new supply figures are in carcase weight equivalent, whereas the per capita consumption estimates above relate to the actual weight purchased.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average liveweight price of steers in(a) 1972 and (b) 1997. [22490]

  Mr. Rooker
  The average liveweight price of steers in Great Britain in 1997 was 97.5 p/kg. An equivalent price for 1972 is not available.

  However, comparable figures for the United Kingdom for 1972 and 1997 are available for all clean cattle. In 1997, the average all clean cattle price was 95.4p/kg liveweight and in 1972 the average fat cattle market price was 30.3p/kg liveweight. The 1972 price relates to animals certified under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Export Forum
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to 186
  the recommendations of the Export Forum, if he will make a statement on his Department's export promotion work. [20427]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department welcomes the report of the Export Forum, and supports the thrust of their proposals, which will form an important basis for a new export initiative. Supporting British business abroad helps create prosperity at home, and is one of this Department's key roles.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he will take to assist small and medium enterprises in their export efforts. [20428]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our new Export Initiative, based on the recommendations of the Export Forum, will have a particular focus on the needs of small and medium enterprises which are exporters, or have the potential to export.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken to promote job creation in the EU. [20431]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department has worked with other government departments to encourage EU policies which promote job creation. We supported the inclusion of an Employment Title in the Treaty of Amsterdam and at the Employment Summit in Luxembourg. We secured a text that reflected HMG's priority of bringing jobs and opportunities for the long-term unemployed. At the forthcoming Cardiff Summit we will be reviewing the Action Plans by member states drawn up under the guidelines approved at Luxembourg.

  India
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with India. [20432]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We enjoy good and close relations with India and, as I made clear in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on 8 July 1997,Official Report, column 415, we look forward to strengthening this important relationship still further.

  Middle East
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the middle east.[20433]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We are concerned by the current stalemate. We attach the highest importance to full implementation of existing commitments under the Interim and Hebron Agreements, and will give that issue high priority during our conduct of the EU Presidency.
  187
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Union's role in the middle east peace process during the United Kingdom's presidency. [20435]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Working to re-inject momentum into the peace process will be one of the most important foreign policy priorities of our Presidency. We will endeavour to keep up the pressure for progress in implementing existing agreements and ensure that EU and US efforts are complementary in moving the peace process forward.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [20440]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Working to re-inject momentum into the peace process will be one of the most important foreign policy priorities of our Presidency. We will endeavour to keep up the pressure for progress in implementing existing agreements and ensure that EU and US efforts are complementary in moving the peace process forward.

  As part of our Presidency involvement I will be visiting Israel, Gaza and the West Bank on 14 to 16 January. I will be holding meetings with, among others, the Prime Minister of Israel and the Minister of The Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit the middle east to discuss measures to increase United Kingdom exports to that area. [20445]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit the Middle East during the Spring. I am sure that trade issues will be discussed during his visit. I am delighted by the continuing high level of British exports to the region. Over the first ten months of 1997 there was a year on year increase of 19 per cent.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about arms control and if he will make a statement. [20434]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary remains firmly committed to the promises made in the Labour manifesto. He is pursuing these issues in discussions with a range of interested parties.

  Turkey
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Turkey. [20436]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We attach great importance to our relations with Turkey, and value our dialogue on a wide range of issues.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to discuss Spain. [20437]
  188
  Mr. Robin Cook
  I look forward to seeing the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on 28 January in London.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives over Cyprus he proposes for 1998. [20438]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We will continue to use our influence to help ensure that the two communities resume the settlement negotiations under the aegis of the UN Secretary-General. As EU Presidency, we will open accession negotiations with Cyprus. We hope this will involve a joint Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot delegation.

  EU Institutions (Reform)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the Government's plans for Britain's presidency of the European Union in respect of reform of EU institutions. [20439]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  During the course of the UK Presidency, we are determined to make as much progress as possible towards the next enlargement of the European Union. One element of this will be discussing with other Member States how and when to proceed with Protocol No. 11 to the Treaty of Amsterdam concerning institutional reform in the context of enlargement. We fully support the principle of a smaller Commission and the reweighing of votes in the Council that this Protocol provides for.

  Preparation for other measures envisaged by the Treaty of Amsterdam—for example, improving the quality of European legislation and ensuring greater openness in the Union—will continue during the UK Presidency. So will a series of continuing reforms to improve the operational efficiency of the institutions, such as SEM 2000 to improve financial management in the Commission and MAP 2000 to modernise the European civil service.

  EU Countries (Territorial Claims)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries in the European Union which have a claim in their constitutions over the territory of another member of the Union. [20441]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The only such case I know of concerns the Irish Constitution, Article 2 of which asserts that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland. The Irish Government have undertaken to introduce and support proposals to change the constitution, so as fully to reflect the principle of consent as part of an overall settlement in Northern Ireland.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which east and central European countries he proposes to visit during 1998 to discuss the enlargement of the European Union. [20442]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I visited Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic last November. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently visited the other seven
  189
  Central European applicant countries. We therefore have no immediate plans to visit the region. But we will have extensive contacts with our Central European colleagues at the many events involving them during the UK Presidency of the EU in the first six months of 1998.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to use the presidency of the European Union to strengthen economic and social agreements between the European Union and those states which were formerly members of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union that currently have European Union association agreements. [20443]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We will work to ensure that Accession Partnerships for the 10 Central European countries that have EU Association Agreements are concluded by 15 March, as requested by the Luxembourg European Council. The Partnerships will feature a targeted programme of enhanced aid designed to help the applicants prepare for EU membership. They will, of course, be in addition to the continuing contacts within the Association Agreements for all 10.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress on enlargement of the European Union. [20448]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The decisions taken at the Luxembourg European Council have taken the enlargement process into its next stage. The way is open for the EU, with the UK as Presidency, to open accession negotiations with the six applicants who are ready, this spring. Those who need more help to prepare will get it; and all will participate on an equal footing in the European Conference to be inaugurated in London on 12 March.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government support the application of Lithuania for membership of the European Union in the next wave. [20450]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Yes. We support enlargement of the EU and look forward to all applicants joining as soon as they are ready. But we do not favour talk of "waves" of membership. Applicants will be treated on their own individual merits.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the foreign ministers of Latvia and Lithuania about European Union enlargement following the Luxembourg European Union summit. [20451]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress towards democracy in Nigeria. [20444]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We and our EU, Commonwealth and UN partners agree that there has been no real progress on restoration of democracy and respect of human rights in Nigeria.
  190
  Our concerns about the transition programme include the non-inclusive nature of the process; the introduction of a decree which has enabled the Head of State to remove duly elected local council representatives from their positions; and the fact that the new Constitution of Nigeria has yet to be published and distributed.

  We also continue to have serious concerns about the application of the rule of law and adherence to acceptable standards of human rights, including the failure to release political prisoners and detainees, and the limitations of freedom of speech. Since early November several more journalists and human rights activists in Nigeria have been detained without charge, and only two have been released.

  Algeria
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised the human rights situation in Algeria with the Algerian authorities. [20446]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I last raised human rights with the Algerian Ambassador in London in June. My officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussed our response, and that of our EU partners, to massacres in Algeria with the Algerian Ambassador in London last week. Our Ambassador in Algiers discussed the same subject with the Algerian authorities earlier this week.

  Australia
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Australia to discuss United Kingdom—Australian relations. [20447]

  Mr. Fatchett
  British and Australian Ministers are in regular contact but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Australia at present.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of civil rights in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [20449]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As I informed the honourable Member in my written reply on 8 July 1997,Official Report, column 415, basic civil rights are enshrined in the Sri Lankan constitution. We hope that the Sri Lankan Government will continue to respect them.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. White
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review(a) the bankruptcy laws and (b) the way bankruptcy is administered. [21489]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  A working party is reviewing the current state of regulation in the insolvency profession and recently issued a consultation paper 'Insolvency Practitioner Regulation—Ten Years On'. Responses to that will inform their final report to the Secretary of State and the insolvency recognised professional bodies. Additionally, a further working party, chaired by
  191
  Mr. Justice Ferris, is currently considering the remuneration of office holders and is expected to report in early 1998. The findings and conclusions of both groups will receive very careful attention when received.

  European Fusion Project
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the management performance of the Joint European Torus undertaking in respect of the European Fusion Project at Culham, with particular regard to the use of public funds and the consequences for future energy policy. [21170]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The Joint European Torus at Culham is the European fusion programme's most important facility, and is in fact the largest of its kind operating anywhere in the world. The management achieved record results last month for fusion power and fusion energy. However, the report of the European Court of Auditors on JET's 1996 accounts raised some issues of concern. It identified a number of weaknesses in JET management's application of JET's Financial Regulations concerning the awarding of contracts, most notably in the areas of contract personnel and invitation to tender. The JET Director, Dr. Keilhacker, has responded disagreeing with the conclusions drawn by the Court in some of the specific examples quoted. He accepted some of the recommendations and rejected others.

  We are concerned about the apparent weaknesses in various areas of JET management's performance, and we shall ensure that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pursue this issue in the JET council and other committees on which it is represented. I expect the JET Council either to satisfy itself that the JET Director's response is adequate or to ensure that he implements the audit recommendations.

  JET's expenditure is around £60 million a year, and it is important that this money is spent with proper regard to propriety and the need for value for money.

  Electricity Companies (Coal Purchases)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government took to persuade the electricity companies to buy more coal, with special reference to regulatory and other measures. [21776]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This was a commercial arrangement between the parties concerned. Government acted as a facilitator only, and no regulatory or other measures were involved.

  Inntrepreneur
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors underlay her decision not to seek amendment to the decision by the Office of Fair Trading to release Inntrepreneur from its undertakings given on the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [21093]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Ministers do not have the legal power to revoke the February 1997 decision of their predecessors to vary the Inntrepreneur (IPCL) undertakings. Under UK competition law, further undertakings based on the 1991 MMC report between Elders IXL Ltd. (which owned Courage Ltd.) and Grand 192
  Metropolitan could be sought from Inntrepreneur only on the basis of the adverse effects detailed in that report. The UK's competition authorities have not identified any such grounds for seeking further undertakings from IPCL.

  Weapons Convention
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what work is being carried out by her Department to support the negotiations to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. [22511]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department is working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Ministry of Defence to achieve early international agreement on a legally binding protocol to establish an effective verification and compliance regime for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). My officials are members of the UK delegation, led by the FCO, which is playing a major role in the negotiations in Geneva. Responsibility for implementing an agreed protocol in the UK will fall to my Department and my officials are working with the UK pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries to secure their support for a strengthened BTWC regime.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what work her 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 she will make a statement. [22510]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department is responsible for implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in the UK. The legislative basis for this work is the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 and the President of the Board of Trade will be submitting shortly to Parliament her annual report on the operation of the Act. My Department co-ordinates the preparation of annual UK declarations to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), receives teams of international inspectors from the OPCW to verify the UK declarations and licenses the possession, use, production, import and export of certain chemicals listed in the Convention. An official in my Department has been appointed as the UK Representative on the Executive Council of the OPCW and my officials also participate in bilateral meetings and training courses aimed at helping other countries with their national implementation of the CWC.

  The FCO has lead responsibility in the UK for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, my Department is responsible for ensuring that the UK meets is commitments under the 1978 safeguards agreement concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Euratom in connection with the NPT under which the UK undertook to accept IAEA safeguards on all civil nuclear materials in facilities within the UK.

  An official in my Department represents the UK on the Board of Governors of the IAEA and in that capacity is involved in all formal decisions of the IAEA including in the field of safeguards.
  193
  The IAEA safeguards system is now being strengthened following the agreement by the Board of Governors of the IAEA in May 1997 of a model protocol additional to existing safeguards agreements. The DTI took the lead for the UK in negotiating this model protocol. My Department is currently engaged in the negotiation of an additional protocol to the UK's existing safeguards agreement based on the model protocol and specific commitments given by the UK Governor to the IAEA when the model was adopted.

  Consumer Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on consumer credit monetary limits and fees. [23093]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I am pleased to report that I have laid before Parliament today the Consumer Credit (Increase of Monetary Limits) (Amendment) Order 1998. This order is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be debated by both Houses of Parliament.

  I will then lay two other associated Orders, the Consumer Credit (Further Increase of Monetary Amounts) Order 1998, and the Consumer Credit (Realisation of Pawn) (Amendment) Regulations 1998.

  The main thrust of these amendments will be to increase protection for consumers and unincorporated businesses by raising the upper limit for regulated credit and hire agreements to £25,000, from the current level of £15,000, which has not been changed since 1983. This will bring under regulation most unsecured consumer loans and many loans for house purchase and other loans secured on property which are currently above the regulated level.

  Because many people who borrow small amounts are among the more vulnerable consumers, I have decided not to raise the upper limit on small agreements or to change the exemption limits for connected lender liability.

  The upper limit relating to the consumer's right to terminate a hire agreement after 18 months will be raised from £900 to £1,500.

  The fees which consumers pay for copies of documents and other services and the exemption limit on the notice of intention to sell pawned goods will be raised to reflect inflation since the last rise.

  The consumer's liability following misuse of a credit card will remain at the current level of £50.

  To give the credit and hire industries time to make the necessary administrative amendments, the changes will come into force on 1 May 1998, after the Increase of Monetary Limits Order has been debated and received the approval of both Houses.

  EU Acquired Rights Directive
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to carry out public consultation on the European Commission's proposal to amend the Acquired Rights Directive. [23092]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has today published a public consultation document on this issue. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Exports (South Korea)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's export promotion work with South Korea. [20417]

  Mrs. Roche
  Our aims are to ensure that: British companies are fully briefed on those areas which present good commercial opportunities for them in South Korea; and South Korea is aware of our capabilities in those same areas. In carrying this out we have a responsibility to advise our companies of the practicalities of doing business in South Korea. This is particularly relevant with the present economic situation.

  As a tool to achieve this, in June 1997, I launched a set of publications called "Trading with Korea"; they provide factual information on specific issues that affect British companies doing business there. These publications are available free of charge from my Department. My Department is working closely with the Business Links: to promote these publications: and to offer companies targeted briefing on doing business in South Korea.

HEALTH

  Insulin
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken, over the last 10 years, to monitor the effectiveness and the side effects of genetically engineered insulin in comparison with animal insulins; and what have been the results of such monitoring. [19251]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency is responsible for the continuous monitoring of the safety of all licensed medicines and the safety of human (genetically engineered) insulin is therefore under continuous review. In addition, a considerable number of clinical studies have been performed and published comparing animal and human insulin.

  The Committee on Safety of Medicines, which advises the Government on such matters, has fully reviewed the safety of human insulin on several occasions since its introduction. During the review process there has been repeated consultation with experts in the field of diabetes as well as with the British Diabetic Association. The Committee has concluded that, although some patients have experienced problems on transferring to human insulins and may be better suited to animal insulins, there is no evidence of a safety problem specific to human insulin. The Committee will continue to monitor closely the safety of insulins.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the cost to the National Health Service in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 of treating patients previously covered by private health insurance. [22464]

  Mr. Milburn
  No such estimates have been made. The numbers covered by private medical insurance have fallen since 1990. Any additional demand from an increase in numbers failing to renew policies will be covered by the additional resources both this year and next.

  Chiropody and Podiatry
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS chiropody and podiatry services were provided to ethnic minority patients in each of the last three years. [22555]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about the ethnic background of patients receiving National Health Service chiropody and podiatry services is not collected.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure ethnic minorities with non-insulin diabetes have full access to NHS chiropody and podiatry services. [22554]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department of Health established a task force in 1993 to look at ways of securing better and more cost-effective chiropody services within the National Health Service. The recommendations were widely disseminated to the service with the emphasis being on the provision of services to "at risk" groups—for example diabetics and those with acute clinical need. Information about the ethnic background of patients receiving NHS chiropody and podiatry services is not collected.

  It is currently the responsibility of health authorities and general practitioner fundholders to assess the health care needs of their population, and to secure a range of hospital and community health services, including chiropody services, to meet those needs. Most health authorities give priority to meeting the chiropody needs of older people, those with "at risk" conditions, and certain other groups such as children, pregnant women, and people with learning disabilities.

  Under the Chronic Disease Management Programme for diabetes, participating GPs (currently 94 per cent.) are required to give patients a full review, including checks for potential complications, at least annually and to refer them promptly to other services where appropriate. Health Service Guidelines HSG(97)45 on "Key features of a good diabetes service", issued to the NHS in November 1997, gives guidance on developing a structured programme of care, including surveillance for, and management of, the risk factors and complications of diabetes. It also flags up the importance of a responsive service, sensitive to different needs and states:
  "prevalence of diabetes is generally much higher in all non-Europid ethnic groups, particularly the South Asian and African-Caribbean groups. It is important that consideration is given to the language and cultural barriers that may exist between health professionals and people with diabetes".

  The Department of Health has commissioned new national clinical guidelines for non-insulin dependent diabetes, and other clinical effectiveness publications, which we expect to be available by the end of 1999. Copies of Health Service Guidelines HSG(97)45 are available in the Library.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of limitations on the availability of chiropody services to particular age groups; what representations he has received on the subject; and if he will make a statement; [22551]
  196
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997, Official Report, column 662, what assessment he has made of the extent to which health authorities' decisions to provide chiropody services are determined according to the need of the population served. [22557]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department of Health established in 1993 a task force to look at ways of securing better and more cost-effective chiropody services within the National Health Service. The recommendations were widely disseminated to the service with the emphasis being on the provision of services to "at risk" groups and those with acute clinical need.

  It is currently the responsibility of health authorities and general practitioner fundholders to assess the health care needs of their population, and to secure a range of hospital and community health services to meet those needs. Decisions about health care and the use of resources are best taken at local level because it is there that people's needs are best known and services can be tailored accordingly.

  Ministers have received a number of representations and communications on the subject and have responded individually.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his Department's answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 662, how many health authorities have consulted with their local residents during the last 12 months over the proper priority for chiropody within purchasing priorities. [22559]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not routinely collected.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have notified his Department of(a) reductions and (b) increases in chiropody services in the last two years; and what other sources are utilised to collate trends in the level of services. [22558]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not routinely collected. Health authorities are not required to notify the Department of changes in activity in particular services. Although the Department wishes to see health authorities and general practitioner fundholders provide the full range of National Health Service services including chiropody, detailed planning decisions on levels of provision are taken locally according to the needs of the population served.

  Information from health authorities about patient contacts with their chiropody services is collected on Department of Health annual return KT23. This information is published each year and copies of the summary information booklets are available in the Library.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the budget for each trust in England for NHS chiropody and podiatry services in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1994–95. [22560]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures on National Health Service trust budgets are not available centrally. Expenditure on community chiropody services by health authority directly managed units and NHS trusts in England for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 have been placed in the Library.
  197
  Expenditure figures are compiled at the end of the financial year and therefore figures for 1997–98 have not yet been collected.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 662, what methods his Department employs to communicate to health authorities the requirement for chiropody to be included within the full range of NHS services. [22556]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is currently the responsibility of health authorities and general practitioner fundholders to assess the health care needs of their population, and to secure a range of hospital and community health services, including chiropody services, to meet those needs. Health authorities were informed, in the 1997–98 NHS Priorities and Planning Guidance, of the need to ensure, in collaboration with other local authorities and organisations, that integrated services are in place to meet needs for continuing health care for older people, people with disabilities, vulnerable people and children.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department takes to ensure that the foot health needs of the elderly population are met; and what indicators measure levels of access to chiropody and podiatry services by those aged over 65 years. [22553]

  Thousands

  Years

  Total

  Age

  0–4

  5–15

  16–54

  55–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  1994–95

  975.4

  17.4

  75.4

  137.0

  109.2

  268.1

  256.4

  111.9

  1995–96

  950.6

  15.6

  65.6

  147.9

  109.5

  255.8

  246.3

  109.9

  1996–97

  975.4

  16.5

  68.9

  158.2

  115.7

  253.7

  250.0

  112.4

  Information about the source of referral of NHS chiropody and podiatry patients for chiropody and podiatry services has not been collected centrally since 1991–92. In 1991–92, approximately 50 per cent. of the patients seen by chiropody services were self referrals.

  Falloden Private Hospital, Leeds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were carried out at the Falloden private hospital, Leeds, during(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [21799]

  Ms Jowell
  A total of 693 abortions undertaken at the Fallodon Private Surgical Hospital were notified to the Chief Medical Officer between 1 January 1995 and 28 November 1995. On 29 November 1995, the hospital closed following withdrawal of registration under the Registered Homes Act and withdrawal of approval to carry out abortions by the then Secretary of State.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to establish the number of female patients who did not receive a full dosage of anti-D immunoglobulin during terminations undertaken at the Falloden private hospital, Leeds; what the implications of this are for the patients concerned; what steps have been taken to warn them of the potential risks they face and provide appropriate screening; and if he will make a statement. [21800]
  198
  Mr. Boateng
  It is currently the responsibility of health authorities and general practitioner fundholders to assess the health care needs of their population, and to secure a range of hospital and community health services, including chiropody services, to meet those needs. Most health authorities give priority to meeting the chiropody needs of older people, those with "at risk" conditions for example diabetes, and certain other groups such as children, pregnant women, and people with learning disabilities.

  Information about contacts with community chiropody services by age group is collected annually on Department of Health return KT23 and is published each year. Copies are available in the Library. In 1996–97, 63 per cent. of initial contacts with the chiropody service were with patients aged 65 and over.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the age profile of NHS chiropody and podiatry patients for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95; and what proportion of initial contacts made by NHS chiropody and podiatry patients were self-referred in these years. [22552]

  Mr. Boateng
  The age profile of National Health Service chiropody and podiatry patients as defined by initial contacts in the last three years is as follows:

  Ms Jowell
  When the Department became aware that some women had received less than the recommended dose of anti-D immunoglobulin, at the Fallodon Private Surgical Hospital, expert medical advice was sought on the medical consequences. That advice was that it would not be possible to identify any woman who may have been affected unless and until they became pregnant again.

  Establishing the number of female patients who did not receive the full dose of anti-D would not therefore guide future care, nor offer benefit to the women concerned, and might cause needless anxiety. Any attempt to contact these women indirectly, for example via their general practitioner, would have run the risk of breaching patient confidentiality.

  A woman's blood group is routinely tested as part of her ante-natal care. If she is found to be Rhesus negative she would be monitored to see whether she develops Anti-D antibodies. Action necessary to protect the baby would be determined by the results of this monitoring.

  Tobacco
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relationship between the level of(a) smoking among young people and (b) smuggled tobacco products from other member states of the European Union. [22793]

  Ms Jowell
  No assessment of such a relationship has been made.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons she has not made the new payments for assistance with winter fuel bills available to all groups receiving cold weather payments. [20624]

  Mr. Denham
  In our manifesto we made a commitment to review the central areas of insecurity for older people and examine ways to deliver more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. Work is underway in both areas, but we are not prepared to allow another winter to go by when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating because they do not know whether they will get the help they need with their fuel bills. The additional help of £400 million over this winter and next, announced by the Chancellor on 25 November 1997, demonstrates the Government's commitment to help the elderly keep warm in their homes.

  We have already taken action to cut fuel costs and make homes easier to heat. So far we have: reduced VAT on domestic fuel from eight to five per cent; reduced the gas levy to zero; extended energy efficiency grants and announced a reduction on VAT on energy saving installation schemes; announced the setting up of an Environmental Task Force which is expected to include a programme of energy efficiency improvements in the homes of the elderly; and, released almost £800 million to local authorities over the next two years to help meet pressing housing needs, which is expected to feature improved energy efficiency in many areas.

  Disability Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of claimants in(a) Sutton and (b) Greater London, who are currently claiming disability allowance for (i) mobility awards and (ii) care awards, for (1) arthritis, (2) muscle/ bone/joint disease, (3) blindness, (4) stroke-related disability, (5) learning difficulties, (6) other mental health causes, (7) epilepsy, (8) deafness, (9) malignant disease, (10) chest disease, (11) back ailments, (12) heart disease, (13) Parkinson's Disease, (14) Diabetes Mellitus, (15) renal disorders, (16) AIDS, (17) skin diseases and (18) other reasons. [21670]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 12 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding what estimate she has made of the number of claimants in (a) Sutton and (b) Greater London, who are currently claiming Disability Living Allowance for (i) mobility awards and (ii) care awards, for (1) arthritis, (2) muscle/joint/bone disease, (3) blindness, (4) stroke related diseases, (5) learning difficulties, (6) other mental health causes, (7) epilepsy, (8) deafness, (9) malignant disease, (10) chest diseases, (11) back aliments, (12) heart diseases, (13) Parkinsons disease, (14) Diabetes melitus, (15) renal disorders, (16) AIDS, (17) skin diseases, (18) other reasons.
  200
  Due to the low numbers involved and high margin of error, it has not been possible to provide an accurate breakdown, by main disabling condition for Sutton. However the following figures provide the total of all the disabling conditions required, for the Sutton area.

  All disabling conditions

  All awards

  3,187

  Awards of care

  2,049

  Awards of mobility

  2,771

  As the numbers for Greater London are higher a more accurate breakdown has been possible and this shown in the attached table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability living allowance for Greater London

  Main disabling condition

  All awards

  Awards of care

  Awards of mobility

  1. Arthritis

  27,900

  17,900

  25,500

  2. Muscle/joint/bone disease

  12,900

  8,800

  10,500

  3. Blindness

  6,100

  5,300

  5,900

  4. Stroke related diseases

  7,800

  6,700

  7,000

  5. Learning difficulties

  19,100

  15,100

  16,000

  6. Other mental health causes

  24,900

  21,200

  20,300

  7. Epilepsy

  4,800

  4,400

  4,100

  8. Deafness

  2,300

  2,200

  1,300

  9. Malignant disease

  4,700

  4,300

  3,900

  10. Chest disease

  5,200

  2,800

  4,700

  11. Back ailments

  11,500

  6,900

  10,600

  12. Heart diseases

  8,300

  4,200

  7,800

  13. Parkinsons disease

  1,100

  1,000

  1,000

  14. Diabetes melitus

  4,100

  3,400

  2,700

  15. Renal disorders

  1,200

  900

  1,000

  16. AIDS

  3,700

  3,500

  3,400

  17. Skin diseases

  1,400

  1,300

  400

  18. Other reasons

  26,900

  20,900

  21,800

  Data is provisional and subject to change.

  Respiratory Diseases
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what advice she has received from the Benefits Agency Medical Services in the Yorkshire Region concerning the delay in applicants receiving medical examinations for respiratory diseases; and if she will make a statement; [21624]

  (2) what was the average length of time applicants in the Normanton constituency waited for medical examinations for respiratory diseases (a) for the six months from January to June, and (b) from July to December 1997; and if she will make a statement; [21625]

  (3) what action she intends to take to promote efficiency in the Yorkshire office of the Benefits Agency Medical Services; and if she will make a statement; [21626]

  (4) what proposals she plans to introduce to ensure a sufficient number of trained doctors to carry out medical examinations in the Yorkshire Regions for chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if she will make a statement. [21627]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Benefits Agency Medical Services is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  201
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Bill O'Brien, dated 12 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions about the operation of Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) in the Yorkshire area.
  Performance in all areas of the Benefits Agency (BA), including the clearance of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit referrals in respiratory disease cases, is routinely monitored. There were temporary problems with examinations in the Yorkshire region earlier this year due to recruitment of new staff and a reorganisation of boundaries within BAMS. Appropriate action has been taken by local management to deal with those problems.
  Information on performance targets is available for the Leeds Medical Services Centre (MSC), which includes Normanton. BAMS are set national performance targets when dealing with claims to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) from clients suffering from respiratory diseases. The performance of Leeds MSC against these national targets since January is set out on the attached table. I would like to reassure you that BAMS is fully committed to continuing this improvement.
  Since July, there has been no shortage of suitably trained doctors to carry out medical examinations in the Yorkshire Regions for chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
  Much of the delay in dealing with respiratory disease cases is not directly related to arrangements for the actual medical examination. Once a case is at the examination stage it normally takes only 2–3 weeks to arrange and carry out the relevant medical procedure. However, it may be necessary to obtain further medical evidence before any examination is carried out and it is here that delays can occur, many of which are outside the BA's control. There is a legal requirement, for example, to obtain original X-rays when the client has had an X-ray taken during the last 18 months. This is connected with radiation protection and avoids the necessity for further exposure. Hospital case notes, consultant's reports, etc may also be needed.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Clearance of industrial injuries disablement benefit referrals in respiratory disease cases

  Percentage cleared in 33 working days

  Percentage cleared in 70 working days

  Target

  60

  90

  January to June

  19.2

  46.7

  July to November

  45.9

  91.4

  School Governors (Benefit Withdrawal)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefits claimants have had benefit withdrawn as a consequence of acting as a school governor since 1990; and of these, how many have had each benefit concerned withdrawn in each year. [21811]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly gross council tax of family credit recipients; how many have weekly gross council tax bills of (i) up to £3.99, (ii) £4–£7.99, (iii) £8–£11.99, (iv) £12–£15.99, (v) £16–£19.99 and (vi) £20 or above; and how many in each of these categories are also receiving council tax benefit. [21787]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: According to the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey the average weekly gross Council Tax of Family Credit recipients was £11 (rounded to the nearest £1).
  202
  Information about the gross level of the Council Tax liability of Family Credit recipients is shown in Table A. Counts of Family Credit receipt derived from the Family Resources Survey do not match administrative sources. Therefore the requested figures are shown as percentages rather than grossed up counts. Percentages are also used to show those within each band that are also in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

  Table B contains details of Council Tax Benefit recipients who are also in receipt of Family Credit.

  Table A: Gross level of the Council Tax liability of Family Credit recipients

  Recipients of Family Credit

  Weekly gross Council Tax (£"s)

  Percentages within each Council Tax band

  Percentage within band in receipt of Council Tax Benefit

  Up to 3.99

  1—

  1—

  4 to 7.99

  10

  39

  8 to 11.99

  59

  39

  12 to 15.99

  31

  31

  16 to 19.99

  1—

  1—

  20 or above

  1—

  1—

  Total

  100

  Not applicable

  1 Denotes nil or negligible.

  1. The figures exclude non-householder benefit units in receipt of Family Credit.

  2. The figures are based on information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey (FRS). The 1995–96 survey is the latest for which data are available.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts which have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors which control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non response.

  4. The figures refer to householder benefit units where the benefit unit to which the adult belongs is in receipt of Family Credit. A benefit unit is a single adult or couple living as married and any dependent children.

  5. Gross Council Tax is the amount of weekly Council Tax eligible for Council Tax Benefit.

  Table B: Council Tax Benefit recipients who receive Family Credit, by average weekly gross Council Tax, within Great Britain—May 1996

  Average weekly gross Council Tax (£s)

  Council Tax Benefit recipients with Family Credit

  Up to 3.99

  1—

  4 to 7.99

  67,000

  8 to 11.99

  116,000

  12 to 15.99

  18,000

  16 to 19.99

  3,000

  20 or above

  1—

  Total all cases

  205,000

  1 Denotes nil or negligible.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries, with and without Income Support, taken at the end of May 1996.

  Notes:

  1. Information refers to Council Tax Benefit recipients who have Family Credit.

  2. Gross Council Tax is the amount of weekly Council Tax eligible for Council Tax Benefit.

  3. The number of recipients have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Figures refer to the number of benefit units.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly gross rent of people in rented accommodation in receipt of family credit; how many have weekly gross rents of (i) up to £9.99, (ii) £10–£19.99, (iii) £20–£29.99, (iv) £30–£39.99, (v) £40–£49.99, (vi) £50–£59.99, (vii) £60–£69.99, (viii) £70–£79.99 and (ix) £80 or above; and how many in each of these categories are also receiving housing benefit. [21786]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 19 December 1997]: According to the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey the average weekly rent eligible for Housing Benefit of Family Credit recipients was £45 (rounded to nearest £1).

  Information about weekly rents eligible for Housing Benefit is shown in table A. Counts of Family Credit receipt derived from the Family Resources Survey do not match administrative sources. Therefore, the requested figures are shown as percentages rather than grossed up counts. Percentages are also used to show those within each band that are also in receipt of Housing Benefit. In addition the requested rent bands resulted in counts too low to be presented with any statistical reliability. In order to provide more reliable figures it has been necessary to enlarge the rent bands used.

  Table B contains details of the average weekly eligible rent for Housing Benefit recipients who also receive Family Credit.

  Table A: Weekly rents eligible for Housing Benefit

  Recipients of Family Credit

  Weekly rent eligible for Housing Benefit (£s)

  Percentage within each rent band

  Percentages within band in receipt of Housing Benefit

  Up to 29.99

  21

  42

  30 to 39.99

  30

  59

  40 to 49.99

  22

  73

  50 to 69.99

  15

  79

  70 or above

  12

  84

  Total

  100

  1. The figures above refer to rent eligible for Housing Benefit. This is the rent paid by a benefit unit for accommodation after taking off certain service charges but before the deduction of Housing Benefit, if applicable. It does not include any local authority "maximum rent" adjustment.

  2. The figures are based on information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey (FRS). The 1995–96 survey is the latest for which data are available.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts which have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors which control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non response.

  4. The figures refer to benefit units where the benefit unit to which the adult belongs is in receipt of Family Credit. A benefit unit is a single adult or couple living as married and any dependent children.

  Table B: Housing Benefit recipients who receive Family Credit, by average weekly eligible rent, within Great Britain—May 1996

  Average weekly eligible rent (£s)

  Housing Benefit recipients with Family Credit

  Up to 9.99

  1—

  10.00 to 19.99

  1—

  20.00 to 29.99

  16,000

  204

  Table B: Housing Benefit recipients who receive Family Credit, by average weekly eligible rent, within Great Britain—May 1996

  Average weekly eligible rent (£s)

  Housing Benefit recipients with Family Credit

  30.00 to 39.99

  58,000

  40.00 to 49.99

  55,000

  50.00 to 59.99

  28,000

  60.00 to 69.99

  21,000

  70.00 to 79.99

  15,000

  80.00 and over

  20,000

  Total (all cases)

  213,000

  1 Denotes nil or negligible.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries, with and without Income Support, taken at the end of May 1996.

  Notes:

  1. Information refers to Housing Benefit recipients who have Family Credit.

  2. Eligible rent is the amount of weekly rent eligible for Housing Benefit.

  3. The number of recipients have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Figures refer to the number of benefit units.

  All-work Test
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have successfully claimed a benefit by passing an all-work test in each year since that test was introduced; and what estimate she has made of the number of such claimants who have earnings from work. [22094]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Cases allowed benefit following referral to the Benefits Agency medical services1

  Number

  1995–96

  561,502

  1996–97

  840,679

  1997–98 (to 31 October 1997)

  460,640

  Incapacity Benefit is only payable as long as a person remains incapable of work through sickness or disability. Recipients are permitted to undertake up to 16 hours work per week without affecting their benefit entitlement provided this work is of a therapeutic nature. It is estimated that 1 per cent. of Incapacity Benefit recipients undertake paid work on the grounds that it is therapeutic2.

  Sources:

  1100 per cent. count of the Incapacity Benefit computer. This includes people claiming benefit for the first time and existing recipients re-referred for a further medical examination. Includes referrals under the all-work test and own occupation test, and includes Severe Disablement Allowance cases. Excludes a small number of cases not on the system.

  2Londsdale, S., Lessof C. and Ferris, G. (1993) Invalidity Benefit; a survey of recipients, London: HMSO.

  Annuities
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate how many pensioners aged
  205
  between 65 and 75 years have postponed purchasing an annuity until after the age of 65 years. [22055]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available.

  Therapeutic Work
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the recognition of therapeutic work was withdrawn from the benefits system; and how many claimants had established an entitlement to earnings from therapeutic work at that point. [22054]

  Mr. Denham
  Under current legislation Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance recipients are permitted to undertake work of a therapeutic nature. It is estimated that one per cent. of Incapacity Benefit recipients undertake paid work on the grounds that it is therapeutic.

  Source: Lonsdale, S, Lessof C and Ferris, G (1993) "Invalidity Benefit; a survey of recipients", London: HMSO.

  This survey found that two per cent. of Invalidity Benefit recipients had ever done therapeutic work and fewer still were doing it at the time of the interview. The 1995–96 Family Resources Survey shows that 1 per cent. of Incapacity Benefit recipients had done any paid work in the week before the interview. Information is not collected directly on use of the permitted work provisions.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the take-up rate in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland of (i) jobseeker's allowance, (ii) income support, (iii) family credit, (iv) disability living allowance, (v) disability working allowance, (vi) housing benefit, (vii) council tax benefit and (viii) severe hardship allowance. [22473]

  Mr. Bradley
  We would encourage anyone who is entitled to a benefit to make a claim. We are addressing the particular problem of pensioners failing to claim their Income Support entitlement by commissioning research into why they do not claim, and by running a number of pilot schemes to help find out how best to get help to them.

  Latest estimates show that in Great Britain in 1995–96: the take-up of Income Support was between 88 per cent. and 92 per cent. by expenditure and between 76 per cent. and 82 per cent. by caseload; take-up of Family credit was 83 per cent. by expenditure and 70 per cent. by caseload; take-up of Housing Benefit was between 93 per cent. and 96 per cent. by expenditure and between 89 per cent. and 94 per cent. by caseload; take-up of Council Tax Benefit was between 76 per cent. and 84 per cent. by expenditure and between 74 per cent. and 82 per cent. by caseload1. Figures for Scotland are not available in the form requested but are likely to be broadly similar to those for Great Britain as a whole.

  Estimates of take-up for Jobseeker's Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Disability Working Allowance and Severe Hardship Allowance are not available.
  206
  For estimates relating to Northern Ireland, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source:

  1 DSS estimates from 1995–96 Family Resources Survey.

  Note:

  Estimates are not available for Jobseeker's Allowance because of its relatively recent introduction; for Disability Living Allowance because work on them is still in progress; and for Disability Working Allowance and Severe Hardship Allowance because of the small numbers entitled to these benefits and thus the small sample sizes involved in the surveys used to produce estimates of take-up.

  Lone Parents
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact of the withdrawal of lone parent benefits on those fleeing domestic violence. [22374]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  New lone parents, including those fleeing domestic violence, will continue to receive the same rate of Child Benefit as couples with children. Lone parents who make a new claim for Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit of Council Tax Benefit will receive the same rate of family premium as couples with children.

  A parent who has experienced domestic violence and decides to leave their partner can seek help from a variety of sources. These include the police, Women's Aid or a local refuge, Social Services and health professionals at a doctor's surgery or Hospital. The key is for agencies to work together locally to ensure that they provide effective support to those contacting them for help, and refer them on to other agencies, such a Housing or a local refuge, where necessary.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement regarding her policy on benefits for single parents in work on low wages. [22466]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare. Our priority is to provide all families, including lone parents, with the support they need to make the transition into work and to support themselves in work. We have already undertaken a number of important steps to help achieve this.

  Childcare plays a crucial role in supporting lone parents in work as they need access to affordable, good quality childcare to help balance work and family life successfully. That is why our Manifesto gave a commitment to introduce a National Childcare Strategy. That commitment is already becoming a reality.

  The massive boost in childcare provision which was announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget statement means every child will have access to out of school care in their community. We are investing an extra £300 million to provide an extra 30,000 out of school clubs—a tenfold increase on existing provision. We have guaranteed a nursery place for every four year old in Britain and provided specific help in the New Deal for Lone Parents towards the cost of childcare.
  207
  In addition, the improvements to the childcare disregard scheme in the in-work benefits from June 1998, means parents will be able to receive up to £95.50 a week towards the cost of their childcare. There will also be more help with the cost of childcare through the Working Families Tax Credit.

  We are also reviewing all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure it provides a fair, efficient, and effective service. Maintenance is a portable income which lone mothers keep when they move into work and they need to know the Child Support Agency will take every action to ensure that it is paid.

  The implementation of a National Minimum Wage will also benefit all low income families. It will provide a statutory level beneath which pay should not fall and will remove the worst excesses of low pay and exploitation of vulnerable workers.

  Finally, we are also examining the interaction of the tax and benefit systems so that they can be streamlined and modernised, so as to fulfil objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthening community and family life.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average(a) rent of tenants and (b) mortgage interest for homebuyers in respect of lone parents in the New Deal pilot areas. [22530]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of lone parents on income support are(a) tenants, (b) owner occupiers with mortgages, (c) owner occupiers who own outright and (d) non-householders; and what is their (i) mean and (ii) median gross weekly housing costs. [22531]

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

  Gross weekly housing costs for household (£s)

  Household tenure

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Mean

  Median

  Tenants

  82

  54

  47

  Owner occupiers with mortgage

  12

  56

  45

  Own outright

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Non-householders

  6

  not applicable

  not applicable

  1 Denotes nil or negligible.

  1. The figures are based on information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey (FRS). The 1995–96 survey is the latest for which data are available.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the percentage of a random sample of lone parents whose youngest child was at school and who were receiving income support who would typically flow off benefit in a three month period in current economic circumstances. [14023]
  208
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [Pursuant to his reply 3 November 1997, column 86–7.]

  The information is not available in the format requested. there are a number of reasons why a lone parent may cease claiming Income Support. These include: re-partnering; receiving an increase in income other than earnings (for example following an award of maintenance); and either starting work or increasing their hours of work.

  There were 506,000 Income Support claimants in receipt of a lone parent premium at the end of November 1996 whose youngest child was aged 5 or over. Three months later 46,000 had ceased to fit into this category: around 36,000 had ceased to claim by the end of February 1997 and a further 10,000 remained on benefit but experienced a change in their circumstances.

  Notes:

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

  2. Sample size 5 per cent.

  3. Continuous claims include those who were no longer a lone parent with a youngest child aged 5 or over in February 1997.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, November 1996 and February 1997.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she has considered excluding sufferers from multiple sclerosis among the categories of disabled people already excluded from the current review programme of disability living allowance claims; and if she will make a statement. [22375]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) is designed to gather up-to-date information about the care and mobility needs of people receiving the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with either the middle or highest rate of the care component, through a programme of postal inquiries and home visits. People with certain conditions are not being contacted directly. These are disabled people receiving payments under Special Rules, quadriplegics, paraplegics, people who are both deaf and blind, double amputees and those within our definition of severe mental impairment. There are no plans to extend this list of conditions.

  The level of entitlement to DLA cannot generally be predicted by the fact that an individual has a certain disabling condition. Entitlement is based on the effect of that disabling condition on the individual concerned and their need for help with personal care and/or getting around. Disabling conditions rarely remain static and as conditions improve or worsen, or the disabled person becomes more or less able to cope, the need for help changes also. Any change in the level of help needed with either personal care or getting around could affect entitlement to DLA. Where a change is gradual and occurs over time, it can be difficult for the individual to recognise exactly the point at which they should be contacting the Benefits Agency.

  Lone Parents (Spelthorne)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of lone parents are receiving regular payments of child maintenance in Spelthorne. [22201]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 465.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each local authority in England how many households are in receipt of housing benefit for(a) local authority homes, (b) private rented homes and (c) housing association homes; and what was the average weekly payment in each category. [22485]
  210
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is provided in the table which has been placed in the Library.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her policy concerning the role of investment income in the calculation of council tax benefit; and if she will make a statement. [22467]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Income derived from capital which has been invested is treated as capital but only from the date it is due to be credited to the claimant's account. This is because, to aid efficient administration, a notional (tariff) income is assumed where capital held by a claimant exceeds £3,000. To take into account both notional and actual income derived from same capital would be inequitable.

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

Lord Neill of Bladen
Sir Francis Patrick Neill, Knight, QC, having been created Baron Neill of Bladen, of Briantspuddle in the County of Dorset, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wilberforce and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.

Computer Games: Classification
2.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to modify the system of classification under which the computer game Grand Theft Auto, which allegedly involves thefts of cars and driving at excessive speeds to evade police cars, has been granted an 18 certificate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, there are currently no plans to change the system of classification for computer games, which, if they show gross violence, human sexual activity or criminal activity likely to encourage similar acts in real life, must be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification and are then subject to the same level of classification as videos. The computer game Grand Theft Auto has been granted an 18 certificate by the BBFC and it is therefore considered suitable for supply only to adults. Its supply to anyone under the age of 18 is an illegal act subject to criminal penalties. The maximum penalty for supplying a computer game in breach of its classification is six months' imprisonment, a £5,000 fine, or both.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. In reply to a previous Question he indicated that the Government are greatly concerned and have the situation under review. As they aim to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, should criminal offences of this kind be allowed to be presented as games or normal pastimes? Are the Government now ready for computer games on burglary and mugging, bearing in mind that it is mostly young people who play these games and not the adults who bought them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Home Secretary has recently appointed Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith to be president of the BBFC and to be the designated authority for the classification of videos under the Video Recordings Act. It may well be young
932
people who watch these games, but I repeat that it is an 18 classification and its supply to anyone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence. If there is any evidence of such supply, it should be reported to the appropriate authorities for them to take criminal proceedings.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that demonstration copies of Grand Theft Auto are being distributed with magazines on sale to the public but that my 12 year-old son, who has played the demonstration copy, assures me that he is not motivated to go out and steal cars?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that excellent news. But it still remains the fact that the supply of such a video for reward is a criminal offence. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would therefore wish to have a private word with his son.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that such games are played by young people in their homes and that it is difficult to know what goes on in the home? Does he also agree that as the Government have made tackling crime one of their three priorities during their presidency of the European Union, they should take any measures that would reduce car crime in this country? We have the worst record for that in western Europe.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Such video games are commonly played in the home. Self-evidently, I would suggest, parents have a responsibility to supervise their own children. One has to strike a suitable balance between banning everything that can conceivably be a pleasure to any section of the population and protecting the vulnerable. We think that at the moment the law is about right.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, at what stage in the production process does such a game have to go for certification? Do all such games have to go for certification?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a game has to go for certification when it is at its final stage of production. It is then a question of whether the video game is exempt under the Video Recordings Act. If it is within one of the categories that I mentioned earlier, it loses its exemption and therefore needs to be classified.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether this video game or any similar game is available in any of Her Majesty's prisons?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know whether any such games are in any of Her Majesty's prisons; but I do know that the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, is keenly concerned that no video or video game should be shown to any inmate in any part of Her Majesty's prison estate if it has an inappropriate classification for the age of that inmate.

Religious Cults: Advice in Schools
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage schools to make use of advisers to raise awareness among secondary pupils of the techniques used to involve and retain young people in religious cults.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a number of schools already invite people with relevant experience to talk to pupils about religious cults. It is for schools and local education authorities to decide whether and, if so, how this should be done.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But is he aware that many families are suffering extreme distress because youngsters in such cults are often ordered to disconnect themselves from their relatives outside and, even if they leave the cult, they may be followed and intimidated? What can be done about that? Will the recent Protection from Harassment Act help?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a worrying problem and one sympathises with any family that is broken up by the activities to which the noble Baroness refers. It seems to the Government that if a child is involved—that is, someone under the age of 18—sufficient protections are available at present. If the person involved is over the age of 18, there is the possibility of civil injunction or, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, using the protection against harassment legislation. If criminal acts are evidenced, I would urge anyone with knowledge of them to bring them to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Moonies, as they are known, are on the increase, whether their numbers are static or whether they are, happily, declining?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I simply do not know. They seem to have mass weddings, so perhaps they are on the increase.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a growing body of evidence that some of the recruiting methods of such cults are causing great disquiet not only to those who look on from afar but also to the families and the young people involved? Although persons aged over 18 may be involved, is it not a good insurance policy to warn young people before they reach the age of 18 that such techniques exist? When I was a Home Office Minister, I found great reluctance in the Home Office to take this matter seriously.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness experienced that in the Home Office. When she was a Minister, the noble Baroness answered a Question—I happen to have a copy
934
with me—about related problems and rightly commented on the difficulty of definition, in that one man's religion is another man's cult. There are undoubtedly dangers for young, impressionable minds and it seems to the Government that it is appropriate in the relevant part of the syllabus, such as religious education, religious instruction and discussions on different religions and cults, to warn young people of the dangers. Again, there is a difficult balance to be drawn between the teaching of mainstream religion and the activities of proselytizing cults. Local education authorities, head teachers and those who provide religious instruction should be alert to that. By and large, I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the danger of some of these so-called cults and religions is that those who are taken in by them lose their minds, in that they lose the capacity to reason and to think? That is a danger which all mainstream religious bodies and schools should point out. No person, young or old, should be forced to lose their mind or their capacity to reason and to think intelligently about matters of religion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. Apart from the responsibility of those who teach young people in schools, mainstream religion equally has duties which the noble Lord doubtless discharged in his pulpit in past years.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does the Minister know how many cults are currently operating in this country?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. It is not a question that is capable of a rational answer because one man's religion is another man's cult and one man's orthodoxy is another man's doxy. I really do not think that I can offer a sensible or helpful answer.

Social Security Spending
2.58 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether social security spending is more likely to be reduced by measures taken inside the Department of Social Security than by measures taken outside it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, it is true that, as the noble Earl said, much DSS expenditure is demand-led, but that does not mean that government overall have no control over the level of that spending. This Government intend to focus their policies on reducing the need for social security, so that social security no longer pays the bill for social and economic failure. That is why we are investing in the New Deals for the unemployed, lone parents and sick and disabled people, to help them to

935
make the most of their abilities. For such initiatives to be successful—I know that the noble Earl has previously been concerned about the point—they require co-ordinated initiatives across Government; in other words, joined-up policy, which we shall seek to deliver.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she said about meeting needs. Does she agree that as governments cannot substantially reduce the number of people with disabilities, nor the rate of relationship breakdown, and as no government are ever likely to set out to reduce the expectation of life, the only way in which governments can significantly reduce the need for social security is by increasing the amount of employment, which is not the responsibility of the Department of Social Security and which cannot be achieved by reforming the welfare state?
Dealing specifically with welfare-to-work, am I right in believing that entitlement lasts for only six months? If at the end of that period the person cannot find a job, does he recover the right to benefit, does he get more welfare-to-work or is he handed over to the Salvation Army?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl makes several points and I shall do my best to answer them. He said that the Government could not affect the need for pensions, the level of disability or the relationship background. He is absolutely right, but that does not mean that the Government do not have the ability to help people meet those issues. For example, although pensioners are living longer, over a million of them fail to claim the income support to which they are entitled. We can help them to do that. We also know that inequality among pensioners is widening, which is why we seek to help more future pensioners go on to a new secure funded second pension.
Equally, it is true that society has become more sensitive to disability issues. But it is also the case that the number of people who claim incapacity benefit has trebled since 1979, not so much because people have gone on to benefit but because they are not coming off benefit since they do not have the opportunity to return to the labour market as they would wish. They can be helped in that regard by welfare-to-work.
Similarly, in the case of relationship breakdowns we can help by making the Child Support Agency deliver financial support and ensuring that society produces the child care that lone parents need. It is not black and white. We can take initiatives to ensure that marginalised groups return to the mainstream of society. I agree with the noble Earl that all these initiatives depend on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country delivering a sound and prosperous economy. We shall work to those ends.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, referring to external reductions in social security spending mentioned in the original Question, can the Minister clarify the position with regard to the so-called affluence test which received widespread publicity earlier in the week? If it was not simply a sound bite on the part of the Secretary of State, can the Minister tell the House what level of
936
income the Government regard as "affluent"? Will that be dealt with in the Green Paper for which we have been waiting for a very long time? When does the Minister expect that document to be published?
Noble Lords: Short answer!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, a call has been made for a short answer. It would help not to have five questions to answer. However, I shall do my best. What we seek to do by affluence testing is to resolve the problem, which I am sure the whole House recognises, of how to target benefits without getting into some of the traps associated with means testing. I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that that is a problem. Affluence testing will allow us to reduce benefits to those who already have high incomes and are well able to support themselves. For example, it could be based upon an individual's tax position.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, in a recent interview on the Government's review of disability benefits, the Prime Minister spoke of fraud in the system now totalling £5 billion. How has that figure been computed? Is it based upon evidence from the DSS or a guestimate by the Treasury?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that the £5 billion was a combination of suspected fraud and possible confirmed fraud in respect of some of the earlier benefits, together with error. That figure emerged from a project undertaken by the previous government. At the moment we are in the middle of a benefit integrity project which has already received about 30,000 replies from disabled people. Thus far we have seen no cases of confirmed fraud. However, we have discovered that in about 20 per cent. of cases there are errors in payment—sometimes too much and sometimes too little. There is a problem to be addressed, but I am happy to confirm that the benefit integrity project has revealed no cases of confirmed fraud.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, has the Minister's department been able to locate a single lady in the United Kingdom whose income is sufficiently high to generate the savings in benefit suggested by the Secretary of State? Can the Minister explain to the House the difference between affluence testing and means testing?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the difference between affluence testing and means testing could be the difference between means testing and taxation. I am sure that noble Lords understand the difference between the two. As to maternity payments, your Lordships will be aware that there are one or two high flyers in this country who would be entitled, given the reported levels of earnings and salaries, to draw that level of maternity benefit. But there is a problem. Maternity benefit is paid in conjunction with earnings. However, insurance contributions are not concomitant with earnings. That was the difficulty upon which the Secretary of State quite properly focused.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government do not believe that the way to deal with affluent people receiving benefits is to raise the top rate of tax since at the moment people who earn £1 million a year pay the same top rate of tax as those who earn £27,000 to £30,000 a year?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government are determined to abide by the manifesto commitments on which they were elected. One of those commitments was not to raise the personal levels of income tax.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the important point is not to save money in the social security budget but to ensure that people who really need money—in particular pensioners—get it when they require it? Can she explain what is being done in that connection?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the particular problems of pensioners. We know that, while on average pensioners have grown more prosperous over the past decade, the wealth of the top 20 per cent. has grown twice as much proportionately as that of the bottom 20 per cent. That is why we need to extend access to a secure, funded flexible pension to all pensioners, including those who may be carers and unable to work in the labour market. My noble friend is absolutely right. If we are to address the pensioner poverty of the future, we must ensure that all pensioners have access to a secure old age.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister realise that some of us on this side of the House believe that the Government are taking the right line in attempting to focus the limited available resources by way of benefit on those who need help? Indeed, some of us would regard it as immoral to give benefit to people who do not need it when that means not giving adequate benefit to those who do. Does the Minister agree that the following are two small steps in the right direct: first, that child benefit should be taxed; and, secondly, to end the nonsense whereby all pensioners in many cities, particularly London, have free public transport, and to do that by deeming it to be a taxable benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, such questions as these land on the Minister's table and are continually under review.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that publicity from government sources has drawn attention to the fact that disability living allowance in some cases goes to people on above average income. Will the Minister bear in mind that without disability living allowance many of these people would never have earned the income, and that disabled persons and the Exchequer would equally be the losers?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I well take that point. It was the previous government who introduced DLA, with our full support. I am well aware
938
that DLA has transformed the lives and opportunities of many disabled people. I am sure the House agrees that we must ensure that the money goes to those who most need it in order that they can enter the mainstream.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of the 9 million pensioners have been extremely concerned by recent newspaper reports that the state pension, which they believe they have paid for during their working lives, will be removed? Can the Minister give an absolute assurance—I hope that she will be able to—that existing pensioners in particular will not be affluence tested and will continue to draw the state pension, dynamised each year by the cost of living, for which they believe they have paid?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes, that was our manifesto commitment. We shall continue to be committed to it.

Wales: Agri-environmental Scheme
3.10 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration has been given to an all-Wales agri-environmental scheme.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced in July 1997 that he would set up a new all-Wales agri-environmental scheme. A working group, comprising representatives of farming and environmental interests, has considered the details of management prescriptions for the new scheme. My right honourable friend will take decisions on its conclusions shortly.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, with the more adverse farming conditions we now have, an agri-environmental scheme is becoming even more essential in order to keep economic and social stability in rural Wales? It seems that such schemes are necessary in many parts of rural England, judging by the Countryside Commission's latest report which appeared today.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord's proposition; namely, that farming has not merely an economic place but an important social place in the fabric of Welsh life. I am happy to say again how much importance the Government attach to that. There is no doubt that farming conditions in parts of Wales have been adverse through no fault of farmers or those who work with farmers. Obviously that adds weight to the initiative which the Secretary of State set out last July.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, throughout Wales one finds people in favour of an all-Wales agri-environmental scheme whose standards, one hopes,

939
will follow those of the Tir Cymen pilot scheme. The real question relates to the amount of resources the Government are prepared to put behind such a scheme. A scheme that did not cover all Wales would be undesirable, because one would have bits and pieces here and there. An all-Wales scheme is bound to need a great deal of resources. Are the Government prepared to put the resources necessary behind the scheme?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The matter needs to be looked at on an all-Wales basis. I agree that the Tir Cymen pilot scheme has produced invaluable lessons. As to funding, I cannot specify the precise allocation of funds which will be available. That depends, first, on the Secretary of State's consideration of the representations, and, more fundamentally, on the outcome of the Government's comprehensive spending review. I can, however, please at least one Member of your Lordships' House—my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—by pointing out that we shall have 50 per cent. of the money back from Europe.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend a little further on the all-Wales scheme. It is a desirable development which I hope can be hastened. If we look back at some of the agri-environmental schemes in Wales we see them failing dramatically. We are at crisis point in Wales in terms of the natural environment, species and habitats, in particular. Can there be some examination in the announcement of the scheme of targeting towards those habitats and species which are in most pressing danger at the moment? We are close to losing many species from Wales, probably once and for all.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. The scheme's objective will be to protect and enhance the landscape, wildlife habitats, and historic features of the Welsh countryside by encouraging the introduction, with financial assistance, of environmentally beneficial farming practices, hope that answer fully meets my noble friend's concerns.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has received positive advice from the Countryside Council for Wales on the need for an all-Wales scheme? Will he ensure, along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that the level of remuneration in the scheme will be adequate to meet the current serious income crisis within the Welsh agricultural sector?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have had useful representations from the Countryside Council for Wales as to the precise level of funding. I must rest upon my earlier answer, which is that it is dependent upon the comprehensive spending review.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that any agri-environmental scheme will be in addition to the protection given under the CAP at present?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, decisions about precise funding mechanisms, their level and how they are to be deployed must await the Secretary of State's consideration of the representations made. As is well known, reform of the CAP is a priority of the Government during their presidency.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to refer to me in connection with the UK's rebate in respect of the contribution that it makes to European funds. Is he aware that in 1996 £5 million of such receipts went to five individuals (£1 million each) in this country, and that the benefits received back from the Commission are not as evenly spread as I am sure he would wish?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was aware of that figure in 1996. Plainly the regime then in power misplaced its priorities—to put it at its kindest. We aim to avoid the mistakes of our predecessors, there having been ample opportunity for us to learn from their errors.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that a great deal of money has been spent over the past decade or so on agri-environmental schemes. Will he assure the House that he is satisfied that the level of monitoring in place on those schemes has been sufficient to ensure that the schemes have been a success, because it seems to me that there is not much point in creating an environment if we do not have the specie that should go with it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl makes a sound point. There has been monitoring in Wales, about which I am presently speaking. Undoubtedly the Secretary of State will bear in mind such a consideration with great scruple and care when he considers the representations that have been made to him.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I appreciate that what the Minister can say on funding is limited, but can he at least give the House an assurance that progress on the implementation of the scheme will not be held up by the Government's inability to spend European funds, because of the Treasury's intransigence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have never before heard it suggested that the Treasury has ever been intransigent. I am quite shocked, and I shall sit down quite soon. The progress of the arrangements will depend significantly on how quickly we obtain approval from Europe, not on how quickly we obtain approval from No. 11.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Report received.

Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Referendum]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5. They deal with the anxiety being expressed from all sides of this Chamber and outside with regard to the need for the electorate who will be voting in the referendum on 7th May to know as fully as possible the details of the proposals on which their views will be sought.
I do not seek to suggest that the Government will not stick to their assurances, but I understand that the White Paper setting out the detail of their proposals will be published towards the end of March, six weeks before the referendum. The Minister nods in confirmation. Ideally, the referendum would take place after a Bill dealing with the substantive proposals had been through the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. We on these Benches do not wish to delay the referendum, but we believe that to have a referendum without having as much detail as possible is second best.
My Amendment No. 5 proposes a compromise, although that may not appear to be the case. I suggest that the Bill proposed by the Secretary of State—I put it in those terms because I do not want it to be argued that it could be any old Bill; it is a Government Bill—should be published at least six weeks before the date of the referendum or, more accurately, that the referendum must he six weeks after the date of that publication. I have chosen the period of six weeks to fit in with the arrangements for the publication of the White Paper. My underlying proposal is that the Bill should be annexed to the White Paper.
We often hear that the devil is in the detail between the White Paper proposals and the legislation. The detail regarding the powers of the proposed authority and, crucially, the relationship between the mayor and the assembly and the controls on the powers of each, is fundamental to the decisions which Londoners will be asked to reach on 7th May.
It is arrogant for the Government to say that their proposals will go through unchanged. However, I am enough of a realist to recognise that with their Whip in the House of Commons that is probably factually accurate. I believe that the voters need to know precisely the detail of the Government's proposals. We have been told that a summary of the White Paper will go to every household in London, but I do not believe that a summary can deal adequately with detail such as the mechanisms for controlling the mayor or throwing him out should he get too big for his boots.
The amendment would not delay the referendum, but it would lead to a more useful and appropriate referendum so that the people of London know on what their views are being sought. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5. I give the Committee notice that, depending on what is said during the debate and by the Minister in reply to Amendment No. 1, I may press Amendment No. 2 when it is called.
Sadly, if the Bill is passed unamended, we shall be seeking the approval of the people of Greater London for a government proposal which at the time we are discussing it has little form or substance. They will be invited to vote for an idea, not a proposal. The point has been made in debates on other Bills that it is a highly unsatisfactory way of proceeding to seek the views of the people in a referendum without their having the details before them so that they can see what is proposed. Indeed, the Opposition Benches require answers to the questions which were posed by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish about the conduct of referenda. We shall return to that issue and shall press the Government for answers.
The Green Paper on this issue, with its 60 or more questions, gives an indication of how complex the governance of London may be. I submit that people are entitled to see the detail before being asked to commit themselves. Indeed, by seeking a positive vote in a referendum in these circumstances, the Government are asking for carte blanche to do precisely what they like when enacting the legislation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are promised a White Paper in March after consultation on the Green Paper. But even that is not satisfactory. It assumes—and it is a big assumption which ought not to be made—that Parliament will enact the legislation to implement the White Paper without amendment. It assumes that the Government will not at some stage change their mind over some significant matter. However, the amendment standing in my name does not ask for the legislation to be in place but merely to be published, mindful as we are of the Government's stated desire to make progress with the proposal. If the draft legislation is to be ready in time for the referendum the Government have nothing to fear from such amendments and can accept them.

943
It is extremely relevant to the people of London when deciding how to vote that they have before them details and not questions or merely the results of consultation. Some of those matters are critical: for instance, the method of election of members of the assembly or of the mayor; the functions of the mayor and the assembly; its financing; whether it is to be tax raising; the powers which will come from central government to the mayor and the assembly; and what will go from the boroughs to the assembly. Planning is vitally important. All those issues can colour the attitude of people towards the proposals. Given the unfortunate mix of powers which existed between the old Greater London Council and the boroughs, people will wish to pay considerable attention to those issues.
If the amendments are accepted there will be some safeguard of a reasonable period before the vote when people will have the details before them and can give them due consideration.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Although the Conservative Party is proud of the fact that after 18 successful years London is now regarded as probably the greatest capital city in the world, it accepts that nothing stands still. Therefore, this is an appropriate time to consider how we can modernise and reform our city for the challenges of the 21st century. However, asking Londoners to consider the changes before they have the details of them is the wrong way around.
We know that there will be a White Paper in the spring, but we do not know what will be in it. Indeed, the Government admit that they have not yet decided on the details. As was said in the other place and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when speaking to Amendment No. 1—I am speaking to Amendment No. 2—the devil is in the detail. At the very least, we must ensure that Londoners have sufficient time to consider the details before the referendum on 7th May.
This very simple amendment seeks to do just that. It will ensure not only that those details can be examined closely, but also that the Government meet the deadline for the production of the Bill. I can see no reason for a government committed to openness and transparency to refuse the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I shall start these proceedings on a conciliatory note. We share the concern expressed by both Front Benches in proposing these amendments that we should ensure that those who have a right to vote in the referendum are well informed about the proposals for new London government.
We have already demonstrated our commitment to facilitating a proper debate. We printed 1 million summaries of the Green Paper to ensure that all Londoners who were interested were aware of the issues. These were distributed throughout London—through an insert in the Evening Standard, through post offices, libraries, local authorities, via many London organisations and, on demand, by post.
944
Ahead of the referendum we shall ensure that every household gets a neutral and factual summary of the White Paper, setting out the proposals on which they will be asked to vote, as well as other initiatives to ensure that everybody knows what the issues are.
The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, will be answered in clear terms in the White Paper. The White Paper will he published during or before the week commencing 23rd March, well ahead of the referendum. That will allow six weeks of full debate on our proposals—sufficient time for all the issues to be explored. That is the proper order to follow. It follows the clear precedent established in Scotland and in Wales for a pre-legislative referendum. It has always been clear that that was what was being proposed in relation to the referendum on London government.
I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I find it rather curious that the Liberal Democrats should have tabled these amendments because in Committee in another place the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Mr. Simon Hughes, argued in terms that that would not be an appropriate way forward. He said that it would not be right and that they were not arguing that it is possible to produce a Bill before the referendum. He accepted that it would slow down the proposals and that he did not believe that to be an appropriate sequence of events. Anyone can change their mind and I understand that the noble Baroness's party has done so. But we do not believe that that is a sensible way forward.
Publishing a Bill which would be a highly complex piece of legislation, drafted in a highly technical style, would not be more comprehensible for ordinary Londoners going to the polls to vote on a referendum than a clear and comprehensive White Paper. We shall publish detailed proposals in the White Paper and Londoners will have the opportunity to consider them in the language not of those of us who are legislators but of those who are voters before they come to vote.
If Londoners vote yes, it will then be for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation, taking account of the content of the White Paper and the verdict of the people of London. The requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would mean unnecessary complication and delay. It would do little or nothing to assist Londoners in assessing the substance of the proposals. People have waited far too long happily to tolerate further delay.
The dangers, if such are dangers, of the proposals that the Government put forward being changed apply in the same way to a Bill as they do to a White Paper. Parliament is supreme and has the opportunity and duty to scrutinise legislation and to change it. Publishing a Bill does not mean that the proposals in it are set in stone before they have become statute. It would do nothing to aid informed debate, which is what we all want from the proposals which the Government put forward.
As the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats recognised in another place, these amendments would put at risk the proposed referendum date of 7th May and with it the benefits to be gained from combining the poll with local government elections. That could result in

945
additional public expenditure of some £2 million to £3 million and risk reduced voter turnout. That could not be in the interests of democracy, the taxpayer or local authorities.
We have no interest in limiting debate on our proposals. We are sure that they will command the support of the majority of the people of London. But we do not believe that publishing a detailed, lengthy and complex technical document—namely, a Bill—would do anything to promote discussion among the voters of London. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness decides what she is going to do with her amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she has had an opportunity to read yesterday's discussions in another place in Hansard. I expect that because she has been preparing for this Bill she has not done so. However, other noble Lords may have read those discussions. I beg the Minister to do so.
In the course of the debate yesterday (at col. 79 of the Commons Hansard) Mr. Tam Dalyell, the Member of Parliament for Linlithgow, made a long speech. It was carefully thought out and constructed. It demonstrated a number of political and practical problems that there are in relation to the Scottish Bill, many of which simply were not visible before the Bill was published. It is quite clear to anybody who reads that copy of Hansard that a pre-legislative referendum revealed little or nothing to the people of Scotland.
The Government should learn from that. They have made a great problem for themselves in relation to that Bill, and I am one of those who most regrets it because it will be extremely difficult to sort that out in Committee in another place and at later stages. Will the Minister convey that message to her colleagues, because a pre-legislative referendum is not quite the simple, clever idea which the Government seem to believe?
Baroness Hayman: I am sure that my colleagues will take note of the noble Baroness's remarks, although my impression was that the issues in relation to Scotland and Wales were well understood and debated as regards the pre-legislative referendums. I have not read Hansard because I have been preparing for this afternoon's debate. I believe that I heard something like the speech which the honourable Member made when I was in another place in 1978. The issues are not new.
Baroness Hamwee: First, I should make clear, as I made clear in introducing the amendment, that we are not seeking to slow down the process. I quite deliberately chose the period of 42 days because that reflected the Government's own timetable. It is important to recognise that the procedure should not be slowed down. That matter was made clear throughout this party's comments on the Bill.
My honourable friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I, as he has said, want to go on talking and finding the right and best way to deal with this referendum. The Minister seems to be saying
946
that it is not possible or practicable for a Bill which reflects the White Paper to be prepared and published at the same time as the White Paper. She did not actually say that, but that seemed to underlie her remarks.
I accept that a Bill can he changed. Had I wished to see a purely post-legislative referendum in the sense of an Act which would come into effect only if the referendum gave the answer yes, I should have proposed that. This amendment seeks to find a mechanism which will give as much confidence as possible not just to ordinary Londoners, who of course would not read however many pages of legislation, but to the many experts outside this House and another place who will contribute to this debate and who I suspect will respond very quickly when faced with a Bill.
The combination of the White Paper and the Bill would allow that level of informed debate—much more information than can be obtained in a summary to go through a letter-box—to take place. Perhaps I may put it this way, it would also mean that the Government would not be subject to the suggestion that parts of the White Paper had slid over the more difficult areas of the proposal. I see that the Minister wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Hayman: Perhaps I may just respond to those points. I share the noble Baroness's wish that we should have informed debate at all the appropriate levels. Indeed, I very much welcome the prospect of debate in this Chamber and in the other place on the proposals in the White Paper. Obviously that is a matter for the business managers in both places, but I believe that we should look at the precedent as regards the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. If we are to meet the timetable that we have set ourselves—and, indeed, we want to publish the White Paper as soon as possible—we must recognise that drafting a White Paper is quite complicated in terms of putting together all the responses to the consultation document. The parliamentary draftsmen simply cannot turn that information into a draft Bill contemporaneously with the publication of the White Paper. The weeks that that would take would inevitably delay the Bill. I accept, of course, that the noble Baroness does not wish to do so.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. They have indeed helped take the matter a little further. If we can discuss between now and the next stage of the Bill how a debate informed by the White Paper may take place before the referendum, that would certainly enable some of us to review our comments on the process. I hope that the Minister will be able to lean on the business managers in that respect to enable such a debate to take place. On the basis that there is a possibility of such discussions taking place within the next few weeks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1. line 8, after ("prescribe,") insert ("but not less than eight weeks after publication of a Bill providing for the establishment of a Greater London Authority and the election of a mayor for Greater London.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, but I wish to maintain it because I believe that there is a matter of principle involved. I am most grateful to the Minister for what she said in response this afternoon. I believe the noble Baroness understands our concerns. However, as I said, there is a point of principle at stake; namely, that we have already compromised by asking for a Bill. We have not asked for legislation to be enacted and subsequently approved by a referendum.
We accept that there is a timetable to be met. Indeed, I believe that we should make every effort to get the Bill published. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, there will be many people at all levels who will want to discuss the legislation, the detail of which will be very considerable. In fact, it is the detail which I believe may change people's views one way or the other on the proposal. It is perhaps not appropriate this afternoon to have a debate on that detail. However, in the light of the experience of previous county-wide government in London and the problems that arose with the division of power, if people were to see such problems being repeated they may well take a different view about the Government's proposal.
With the greatest respect, it is not the same thing to say that a White Paper enables discussion about that kind of detail to take place. It is on the principle that everyone at whatever level of discussion is well informed that I want to see a Bill published, even though that is not perfect. It would enable people to study the detail of the proposals. That is why I wish to move the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I urge Members of the Committee to reject the amendment. We very much want proper and informed debate to take place. I raised this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, on a previous occasion. I believe that he is lecturing the Government about the proper amount of consultation and detail which should be available before changing London government. We did not have a great deal of debate about whether Londoners should see the Bill before they voted in a referendum for the abolition of the GLC.
Lord Bowness: The Minister raised that point on Second Reading. At that time, the Conservative Party fought an election and its commitment was to abolish the GLC. Indeed, we fought a general election on the issue. However, the Conservative Party did not then say that it would submit its proposals to a referendum and that it would seek the approval of the people of Greater London. The Conservative Party chose not to take that route whereas this Government have chosen to do so. Therefore, I believe that we are entitled to ask that people should have the detail of the proposals before they express their views.
Baroness Hayman: Indeed, this Government recently fought an election saying that they would bring forward a Bill to recreate strategic government in London and that that authority would comprise a directly-elected assembly with a directly-elected mayor.
948
We also said that we would introduce a Bill and have a referendum on those proposals which would be put before the people of London. We are trying to keep to that precise commitment. The noble Lord's amendment would wreck that process. It would mean that we could not combine the poll for local government in London and the referendum, which has been accepted as the most efficient way to proceed. As I said, it is a wrecking amendment; it is not about having proper debate to which we are committed. I therefore urge Members of the Committee to reject the amendment.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Addison, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gisborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Alport, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hayter, L.

Belhaven and Stenson, L.

Higgins, L.

Beloff, L.

Holderness, L.

Belstead, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Berners. B.

Home, E.

Biffen, L.

Hood, V.

Blatch, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bowness, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ironside, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bridges, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Jopling, L.

Burnham, L.[Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Cadman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Knollys, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lyell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chesham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mersey, V.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Milverton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monson, L.

Davidson, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denbigh, E.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Naseby, L.

Denman, L.

Nelson, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Newall, L.

Downshire, M.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Erne, E.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Feldman, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Palmer, L.

Fookes, B.

Peel, E.

Gage, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gainford, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

949

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Renton, L.

Smith, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Renwick, L.

Strange, B.

Richardson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Sudeley, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rowallan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Sandford, L.

Vivian, L.

Seccombe, B.

Westbury, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Wilcox, B.

Sharples, B.

Young. B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jeger, B.

Amos, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ampthill, L.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kintore, E.

Barnett, L.

Levy, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Borrie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burlison, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Marsh, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chandos, V.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Curric of Marylebone, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Dixon, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gallacher, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rea, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gregson, L.

Sandwich, E.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sewel, L.

Haskel, L.

Shannon, E.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hollis of Heigharn, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tenby, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ilchester, E.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Islwyn, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

950

Wharton, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Whiny, L. [Teller.]

Winston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.57 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("Authority") to end of line 10.
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 3 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This is really a linking amendment, linking the group of amendments that we have just discussed and the two amendments that we shall discuss which concern a two-question referendum. This amendment, in striking out the words which specify what a greater London authority should be composed of, seeks to do two things. First, we should not in this Bill—which concerns the holding of a referendum—prejudge what the legislation will finally produce. Secondly, we should not impose a take it or leave it package. That links on to the question of the referendum.
This amendment, in seeking to remove those words, is in a sense consequential on the amendments we have just discussed and Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. As I have said, we should not prejudge the legislation and we should not prejudge what people will have a chance to vote on in the referendum. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, described the amendment as a linking, consequential amendment. That is not the Government's view of it. It amends Clause 1(1) of the Bill. The Bill states—at its heart is the Government's proposition—that we shall put a referendum to the people of London to establish a greater London authority,
"made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor".
That is the proposition that was clear in our manifesto; and it is the proposition which we are committed to putting to the people of London.
In effect, the noble Baroness seeks to take out the guts of Clause 1 of the Bill because she recognises that it goes to the core of the legislation and of the Government's belief as to what is the right form of government for London.
Perhaps at this point it might be helpful to the Committee to explain—it is a theme that will recur throughout the debate—why the Government believe that having both a mayor and an assembly, separately elected, is the right composite package of government for London. We favour a mayor who will provide firm leadership, set the strategic direction and be able to get things done. At home and abroad the mayor will represent London's interests and aspirations. But checks and balances are important. The assembly is equally essential to provide a proper framework of accountability, and to scrutinise the mayor's plans and strategies and their delivery.

951
This is not a package from which the Government believe that it is right that we should pick and choose. A mayor alone, unfettered by an assembly, would wield too much power; and an assembly alone would not give London the focus and the leadership it desperately needs. Together, the mayor and the assembly are the best deal for London. We are convinced that, unlike the half-considered alternatives offered by some, it will work. For London to be governed properly it is necessary to have both the mayor and the assembly coming together to create the authority. That is why we have put forward a clear, unambiguous, comprehensive, single question that allows people to express a view on that package of government being proposed for London.
I have made it clear that we favour a mayor and an assembly as a complete framework: a mayor to provide a voice for London and to articulate its interests at home and abroad; and an assembly to provide an essential framework of accountability. The two elements are the cornerstone of our proposals. To remove them from the face of the Bill would be to wreck the purpose of the Bill. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps the Minister will explain this point to me. The noble Baroness said that the two elements must come together. She implies, presumably, that the assembly will monitor the financial position as much as anything else. But where will the question be put to the people of London as to whether or not the authority should have tax-raising powers? Where will the money come from?
Baroness Hayman: We made it clear that we shall not propose additional tax-raising powers for the assembly. That was made clear in the Second Reading debate; it has been made clear in another place; and it will be spelt out once again in the proposal. I am giving that assurance. The disposable budgets of which the mayor will have control are the budgets of the functions which will be taken over by the strategic authority.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps the Minister will expand a little on that. What does she mean by no additional expenditure? Is it envisaged that there will be a precept on local authorities, or will the funding come directly from the Government? It is not clear from what she said.
Baroness Hayman: The programme budgets for the functions to be undertaken by the authority will be passed to the new greater London authority. We are making it clear that unlike, for example, the Scottish parliament, there will not be new tax-raising powers for the greater London authority, but the detail will be spelt out. Amendment No. 3 removes the two component parts of any authority and provides that the Bill will create only a greater London authority.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does not the amendment avoid a pre-emption? As the Bill stands, Clause 1(1) states that the authority will be,
"made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor".
952
I shall support Amendment No. 7. I am asked to do so by the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Let us suppose that Amendment No. 7 is carried. Two questions are put and it is decided that there shall be an elected assembly and not a separately elected mayor, or vice versa. Is it not far better to accept the amendment, which does no violence to the intendment of the Bill, and to leave the question open for the decision of this House as to whether, as in the case of Scotland, we should have two questions and not one?
It is right that the Labour manifesto, which I read often, makes the point that there will be an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor. But it does not make the point that people shall not be able to have one without the other. I merely ask that perhaps this point might receive consideration.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful for the spirit in which the noble Lord puts forward his argument. It is a point to which we shall return during the course of our debates in Committee.
This is firmly at the core of the Government's position. We believe that the two elements which would form together the Greater London authority are inseparable, and therefore that is what the Bill provides. A breach of that principle then allows for the possibility of expressions of support for constitutional settlements that the Government do not believe they could responsibly implement. That is why—we shall come to the debate again and again—we do not believe that two questions are sensible.
There were indeed two questions in the referendum for Scotland, but not two questions about two variants of the constitutional body that would be set up. The additional question related to tax-varying powers. That was an issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred. But there were not two alternatives about whether there should be a Scottish parliament. The whole parcel of constitutional reform was covered by one question.
In Wales, where there was no proposal for tax-varying powers, there was only one constitutional proposal, to which assent was or was not given.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept 100 per cent. what the Minister says: that that is what the Government want. But what is the object of having a referendum geared to produce what the Government want? If one has a referendum one wants to find out what the people want. I take the noble Baroness's point but I hope that she can take mine.
Baroness Hayman: I understand what the noble Lord says. As I say, we shall return to the issue. The point I seek to make is that the referendum tests support for the Government's proposal. It is not a piece of market research to see which of a number of variant constitutional settlements might meet with support from various groups. I suggest that that would not be responsible government. We have never pretended that the proposal is about putting forward a wide range of

953
constitutional settlements. It is about testing the support of the people of London for a proposition which the Government believe is a workable, responsible, creative and effective constitutional settlement for the nation's capital.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I wish to express my increasing anxiety as to the constitutional propriety of the Government's intentions. The heart of this Bill is about holding a referendum. As the noble Lord has just remarked, it is about consulting the people. The Minister seems to be making two other, incompatible arguments. One is that this proposal was in the Government's manifesto and therefore, on the old doctrine of the mandate, it should go through and there is no need whatever to hold a referendum. The second is that we are allowed to have a referendum only on what the Government want. The Minister referred to a new constitutional settlement. My party believes that Britain should be moving towards such a new settlement. But if we are to be told that the only new constitutional settlement we can have is the one that was written into the Labour Party manifesto, then we are rather unhappy about the proposal.
The Minister referred to, "the clear precedent of Scotland and Wales". Taking that as a precedent, in the case of Scotland the Government insisted on a two-question referendum. We need some rather clearer rules about referenda. This will not be the last referendum to be held under this Government. We may anticipate more. My party has a certain interest in the referendum that will follow the report of the Jenkins Commission on proposals for forms of proportional representation. If I understood the Minister correctly and there is no need, for example, to make clear when a referendum is held what exactly Parliament is to be asked to do, and it is possible to return to the proposals and change them, I presume that means that following a referendum the Government could change in some substantial detail what had been put to the people.
There is a distinction between referenda and plebiscites. Plebiscites are what governments do to demonstrate the illusion of consultation but to get their will. Referenda are real consultations with the public. We have moved a little bit away from parliamentary sovereignty in accepting referenda, but only a little bit. The Government are now telling us that the people of London are to be consulted a little bit, but only in regard to one particular package.
I have no doubt that the popular wish in London will be overwhelmingly to have an elected assembly. The case for a directly elected mayor has to be made. I am not entirely sure which line I take on the matter. It would be highly desirable to have a referendum in which the Government would have to make that case to the people of London. It would be an educating process, an encouragement of popular participation. That is what I thought New Labour was supposed to be about: educating the public, involving the public and persuading the public.
954
I suggest that, as many of your Lordships will have noted well, there are two aspects to New Labour's approach to a new constitutional settlement. There is the side of Labour which is decentralist and in favour of more open democracy and more participation; and there is another side which wants to maintain central control, to have an appearance of consultation and to have a government who tell us what the people think as they regard themselves as representing what the people think.
The constitutional dimensions of sliding towards referenda on terms whereby only the Government decide what questions are allowed to be asked are extremely dangerous. I therefore hope very strongly that in the course of the Committee and Report stages we shall change the nature of the way in which the Government define the purpose of referenda, which seems to be the underlying purpose of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: If I over-simplify matters, may I be forgiven? I have a very simple mind. Would any government be responsible if they put forward a proposal—referendum or no referendum—which gave dictatorial powers to one individual without any responsibility on that individual to account to an assembly such as is suggested? Any government who did so would be wholly irresponsible.
When it comes to the question of a referendum, with true democratic backing for any such principle, the Government say this: "We think it is a good idea to have a Greater London Assembly, together with a mayor. People, do you agree with us, or don't you?" That is the simple position as I see it; and I support it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The major innovation here is not the elected assembly which will, after all, reverse the extraordinarily ill thought through abolition of the GLC by Mrs. Thatcher. The major constitutional innovation is having a directly elected mayor for what is in effect a regional authority. The Government need to carry the population with them on that matter. The case needs to be made. If we are moving towards a more participatory democracy, I suggest that the case should be made in a two-question, rather than a one-question, referendum.
Lord Mishcon: I must not conduct a debate across the Floor, even though it is very tempting when the noble Lord makes any utterance to say in polite terms that one disagrees. He put forward a point of view and I tried to simplify the issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I always think highly of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, in this instance I believe he has misinterpreted the amendment. It merely seeks to delete certain words from the Bill. It does not seek to say that there should only be a mayor, or only an assembly. It simply seeks to terminate the clause after the words,
"a referendum shall be held on the establishment of a Greater London Authority".

955
That would mean that a decision could be made at any stage as to what to put to the people—whether to put the matter to them as a package or as two separate items. But deleting those words from the clause does not automatically rule out still having an elected assembly and an elected mayor if that is what the people want. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that one is essential to the other. I understand her party-political viewpoint, but I do not agree with it. I believe that the matter should be put to the people to decide. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. is mistaken in believing that by ending the clause at this particular point we should be ruling out any options. I do not believe that to be the case.
Baroness Hamwee: I had thought this to be a rather innocent little amendment. It was drafted by me some time between Christmas and New Year when I realised that it was a requirement if we were to debate whether there should be one question or two, and to that extent it is consequential, as my noble friend described it. However, it has provoked something of an over-reaction. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are absolutely right in their interpretation of the objective of the removal of these words; that is, not to pre-empt the subsequent provisions within the Bill.
To respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—whose disingenuous description of himself as a simple fellow was not believed by anybody—the noble Lord rightly posed the question as to whether the Government could properly give Londoners the opportunity of voting for what he described as an individual having dictatorial powers without the restraint of an assembly. That is the very point that we on these Benches seek to have debated as fully as possible. It is not only the possibility of dictatorial powers in one individual about which we are concerned. We are also concerned about the powers of the assembly to restrain that potential dictator. That is why we spoke to the previous amendment and why we seek a debate on the two elements. We shall come to that later in the Committee stage. We wanted a debate on the two elements so that that restraint can be well understood and accepted by people as being effective and sufficient. We happen to believe that the provision is unlikely to achieve that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask a question of practical construction. I accept that if we knock those words out we avoid pre-emption. I tried to say so when I first rose. But is it not possible to have an elected assembly without an elected mayor? Let us think about it for a moment. We have one Lord Mayor; we do not have to have another mayor. If people want an elected assembly, cannot they have one without having to have an elected mayor?
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes a good point: we cannot have an elected mayor without an elected assembly. Why cannot we have an elected assembly without an elected mayor? That is what I do not understand.
Baroness Hayman: If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had listened to the comments of the noble
956
Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, he might have heard that there is a different view on his Benches about the possibility of the combinations which might be beneficial to London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that it had seemed an innocent little amendment. I understand why she and her colleagues thought that it was simply a paving amendment. However, the debate we have had on it has started to illuminate those issues to which we shall return on the two questions. They are the fundamental issues to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred. They concern the nature of the exercise in which we are involved in setting up the referendum and they are also the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
It is absolutely correct that a policy that is in a party's manifesto could be implemented without any referendum simply through legislation. That is how we conduct ourselves in most matters of policy. Why the Government get themselves into trouble on the issue, if I may put it that way, is in trying to go beyond that, recognising that it is a constitutional issue and a major change. We have thought it proper that the proposals we put forward for government in London should be tested to see whether they have the approval of the people of London. That would accord with the values of new Labour, to which the noble Lord referred, in terms of being open, testing and consultative.
Where we draw the line is in putting ill-defined questions which could produce answers which the Government believe would be wrong and irresponsible and which they would not implement. I do not believe that that is giving real choice to people. It would be quite improper for a government who believe as strongly as we do that the two constituent parts of the assembly and the mayor must go together. Other people may disagree; Londoners may reject the proposition. That we are prepared for. What we are not prepared for is to have imposed a constitutional settlement which we believe would be fundamentally wrong. That is why the amendment is ill-founded.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am becoming a trifle puzzled. Is it not the case that until we have the second Bill we shall not know what the constitutional settlement is? We know what its principle is and that it is suggested that there should be an elected mayor and an elected assembly to oversee him, or we assume that. But we do not know what the relationship is. Nor is there any means of devising it from the question in the paper. What is worse is that the procedure being suggested, as I understand it, permits the referendum to take place before the definition is clear. Although that has nothing to do with the amendment, it arises from the discussion that has taken place on the amendment. I am becoming a little concerned. It appears increasingly to me that we are being asked to fulfil an election commitment rather than informing and genuinely obtaining the opinion of the people of London on what the detail of the final settlement is to be. We do not have that. It is a dilemma we faced in the Welsh debate and subsequently in the Scottish debate.

957
The situation is extremely difficult and I accept the Government's problems in tackling it. Producing a Bill to deal with a referendum is relatively simple. We have a brief and commendably understandable Bill, but the Committee must be concerned with what lies behind the legislation. The difficulty we face is once again that we do not have the clarity which is required for us to be able to debate the matter simply and easily.
Baroness Hayman: I suggest to the noble Lord that that is exactly why we should not add to the lack of clarity by possible fundamental differences in the structure that we propose. Perhaps I may put it this way. I revert to the issue of the devil being in the detail and exactly what detail people will know. The flesh that will be put on the bones of the Government's proposals will be made clear in the White Paper. It will be finally refined—if that is what you do to flesh—when we go through the legislative process of the scrutiny of the Bill. But the skeleton is not up for negotiation. The skeleton is that for the matter to hang together coherently we need the two parts: the mayor and the assembly, working inter—dependently. That is the Government's position, the fundamental position to which we shall return and the proposition on which we wish to test assent in the referendum.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I believe that if the Minister accepts that this is a constitutional question—and I must declare an interest as a member of the Charter 88 Executive—it seems to me that we are edging towards the increasing use of referenda without appreciating just how much it is changing the British constitution. We all understand the difference between a plebiscite and a referendum. A plebiscite is something which an authoritarian government pose which is intended to contain a question to which there is only one possible answer. A referendum, as I understand it, is a consultation in which it is possible for the people to choose realistically among a number of options.
The difficult question for all of us is: do we wish to accept not just the return of elected government to London but also the major constitutional innovation of a directly-elected mayor? The debate we are now having is because the Government wish to say, "You can only have one, so long as you have the other." That seems a contradictory and possibly semi-unconstitutional measure. We do not have clear constitutional rules on it and I believe that the Government should give a better answer. if not now then certainly before we come hack at Report stage.
Lord Howell: I could not disagree with the noble Lord more than I do. I am not particularly keen on referenda but what my noble friend said and what the Government propose is sensible in the circumstances of what is envisaged for London government. Indeed, I see no alternative to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just tried to tell us what should happen in a referendum. I may be wrong but I cannot remember any referendum being conducted except on the basis of asking the people the question
958
which the government of the day wished to ask. We cannot have a referendum on what the referendum shall be about. That is exactly what the noble Lord proposes. We cannot say to the people, "We shall have a referendum and we shall have some means of finding out what question we would like to ask you so that you can affirm the answer." That is a nonsense in government and local government terms. What is proposed is perfectly simple. If we are to have an elected mayor, then there must be some elected assembly to which he is ultimately responsible. Otherwise we totally depart from democratic concepts.
My noble friend puts before us a concept and the people will be asked to say "yes" or "no" to that concept. If they say "yes", we then move to the next stage, which has properly been raised, as to what should be the relationship between the two different bodies and how it should be defined in law. But that is stage two. Stage one is to obtain the agreement of the London people to the concept and my noble friend's case has been well made out.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I should like to declare a personal interest in that I have had the privilege over the past 20 years of employing the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as an adviser. I can tell the Committee that at no time has he suggested to me that he is a simple man.
I should like to ask one simple question. I understand the question from the Liberal Benches. But are we to have in the referendum only a question to which the Government are convinced they already know the answer? If so, in the Scottish referendum why was not the question: "Do you want an assembly with tax-raising authority?"? Why were the Scottish people asked two questions? First, they were asked whether they wanted an assembly, and, secondly, they were asked whether they wanted one with tax-raising authority.
Why in London are we not dividing those two questions? Why cannot we ask, "Do you want a tax-raising authority?"? Would it be a bad thing if the answer was "No"? At least we would know what the people of London thought. For the rest of the history of this Parliament and this Government are we only to have questions in referendums to which the Government know the answers they want and are convinced that they will get?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Archer, was kind in his reference to me. But perhaps I may make it clear to the Committee that on this occasion, as over the many years about which he spoke, he has not taken my advice.
I am wondering where this debate is leading. I say that because I can remember a certain government deciding that they did not like the Greater London Council. I cannot remember them thinking it necessary to have a referendum on whether or not to abolish, as they did. the only authority that looked after Greater London. I cannot remember the then government suggesting that there should be a referendum asking,

959
"Do you like the Greater London Council? If not, would you like to have an assembly of borough heads to look after London? Or would you like to have a mayor? Or would you like to have an authority?" No such question was asked. I should have thought that that was a more grave constitutional issue than the one with which we are now dealing.
I listen now to those from the Opposition Benches who seem to be so keen on having a referendum and believe that it is right to do so. As I see it—I say this with the utmost respect—the issue is a simple one. A government take responsibility for policy. This Government could do what the Conservative Government did; that is, they could introduce a Bill which would pass through the Commons and your Lordships' Chamber, which said that there should be a mayor and an authority looking after the mayor, to use shorthand words. They could have done that. They could have said, as they said in the manifesto: "London is the only capital city of any greatness in the world without an authority to look after it. We are imposing this upon the country and the people of London because it is the right thing to do, and we said that in our manifesto". Instead, the Government are searching out public opinion in London in a democratic way, asking the one question, "Do you think our policy is right in having an elected mayor and an elected assembly?"
If the answer to that question is "No", then I believe I am right in saying—I have no power from the Back Benches to say this—that the Government will think again. That is what we have to decide today. What the Government are not prepared to do in thinking again is to have, even if they have it in the worthy hands of the noble Lord. Lord Archer, a mayor of London with dictatorial authority. They would never do that. Without the authority, without the assembly, they say, "No thank you". Is not that the simple issue?
Lord Dahrendorf: This is indeed becoming an interesting discussion about what I too thought was a minor amendment. I had not intended to speak, but should like to say a few words.
We are partly talking about London and the government of London and we are partly talking about referendums. I repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate: we need to spend more time thinking about referendums. Contrary to my noble friend Lord Wallace, I feel that plebiscites are instruments to establish legislation—treaties or whatever—by the will of the people, whereas referendums are instruments to find out the will of the people. The normal process of representative government is then set in motion to put the will of the people into legislative form.
My thoughts about referendums—and I have given the matter quite a bit of thought—is that one must beware of turning them into politics or policies by multiple-choice questions. That cannot be the purpose of referendums and therefore governments should have the right, indeed the obligation, to put a proposal to the people to find out what the people think. If the proposal is a package, so be it; it is a package. If the Government
960
are uncertain and do not want to do it in the form of a package, so be it. But it is for the people to express a view on the specific government proposal.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if the answer is "no", the probability must be extremely high that the Government will think again and will not try to push the issue through the Houses of Parliament, as they could. I continue to see no difficulty in asking one package question and there fore see no reason to change the specific paragraph which we are discussing.
Baroness Ludford: The debate has illustrated the difficulty faced in moving Amendment No. 3, which was to try to keep it self-contained so that it did not spill over into debates on Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 concerning the form of the questions in the referendum. On that basis I restrained myself from the temptation of talking about a two-question referendum. However, I am grateful for some of the comments which relate to that topic.
Perhaps I can make a brief comment. The Minister must address the issue of the Government's lack of confidence in their proposals. It will be up to the Government to advocate and lobby for their package, if the result of the Bill is that there is a one-question referendum. But we must also face the fact that the only excuse the Government can give for not having a two-question referendum is that they fear that Londoners may opt just for a mayor. The Government do not support that and therefore they say that they do not want the referendum to contain two questions. We should address that matter head on in a common-sense way. We know that the majority of people in London want an assembly. But as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, it is the question of the mayor that is the controversial point and constitutional innovation.
I do not accept the description of "multi-choice". The reality of the situation is whether we should have an assembly or an assembly plus a mayor. It is unlikely that people would opt only for a mayor. They will think of a government, a parliament, an assembly or regional and local government as a collection of people and not as one person. That is what most people will think of when they say they want the return of an elected authority for London.
We have had part of the debate on a referendum. However, in recognition of the fact that the debate on the amendment has inevitably spilled over into later amendments, I am prepared to withdraw it on the ground that what we are really talking about—the nub of this issue—is the question in the referendum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("elected assembly") and insert ("assembly of the leaders of all the London borough councils and the City of London Corporation").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 24. In view of the wording, perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of a London borough council, at least for the next four and a half months.
At Second Reading and in another place it was made abundantly clear that the Conservative Party accepts the need for an assembly. The argument that a mayor is unsupportable without such an assembly is one we accept entirely. However, we do not accept the need for a directly elected assembly. We submit that, if the Government really mean what they say about not creating the former Greater London Council, they will not take the dangerous step of creating a directly elected authority. That would increase the chances of conflict between the mayor and the authority, between the authority and the boroughs and between the boroughs and the mayor. It is inconceivable that directly elected members will be content with the role described in the Green Paper,
"a key role as a check and balance on the mayor".
I said at Second Reading that we want to look forward rather than back, but I believe that we need to draw on the experience of the past to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
When the Herbert Commission recommended the creation of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs, it was always envisaged, if it was not specifically said in the report, that the boroughs would be the primary units of local government within greater London. As things turned out, for whatever reason—I do not direct these comments at any former GLC of any particular political colour—the GLC did not limit itself to what was described as a strategic role; rather it saw itself as the former LCC writ large over the whole of greater London, exercising a superior role as an upper tier authority over the boroughs. It seemed to be forgotten that while within the area of the old LCC it was the LCC as opposed to the metropolitan boroughs that had the major functions of local government, in the new arrangements the major functions and powers should have been with the new and significantly larger and resourceful London borough councils. That was the case with both inner and outer London. The only major difference between inner and outer London was that outer London boroughs exercised a role as education authorities while in inner London that role was exercised by the Inner London Education Authority, which I believe, although those who served on it will tell me if I am wrong, was technically a committee of the Greater London Council.
Notwithstanding this, members of the GLC found themselves with virtually a full-time job as members. That was at least in part a result of duplication and involvement in a host of matters which should have been left to the borough councils. If this new authority of directly elected members is created, they, like the GLC members before them, will be looking for a role. This danger can be avoided, partly, in the Act which will establish the new authority and by making the assembly indirectly elected and representative of the boroughs.
962
I submit that there is nothing undemocratic about this. The leaders of London boroughs have been elected to hold office as councillors in their own boroughs; they have been chosen by their political colleagues to lead their authority.
The opposition to that notion is that the affairs of London cannot be looked after by such a body because the leaders will take only a parochial view as opposed to a London-wide view. It is difficult for me to say this, having been a London borough leader, but that is an extraordinarily patronising view. It ignores the considerable working together, of which there is now great evidence, of different groups of boroughs of different political persuasions which has taken place following the abolition of the GLC and the co-operation in doing many things which before abolition were thought capable of being done only by an upper tier authority.
It also ignores the extreme difficulty in knowing or finding in the majority of cases what is a London-wide view. London is not the homogenous unit which is often described. Its history and development are different from other cities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. I do not like the overworked cliché of a collection of villages, but it is a collection of towns and cities that have developed very much in their own way—certainly not according to some great master plan and certainly not from one centre outwards. Those towns and cities do indeed have common interests and common problems. They are not islands and I do not suggest that they should act as islands.
The problem most often on people's lips is transport, but the transport problems of greater London extend far beyond the boundaries as they are currently drawn and as proposed in the legislation. Other problems of perhaps lesser magnitude are likely to be of concern to the neighbouring towns which make up the area of the capital rather than to greater London as a whole. It would therefore be appropriate if the leaders of the towns and cities of London were the people who sat down with the mayor to discuss these issues of common interest and provide the checks and balances the Government quite rightly want.
It is worth remembering that there are no problems within greater London that do not affect one or more boroughs. There will be no greater London problems that are problems just for the greater London authority and its members. The problems of greater London are the problems of the citizens, the people who live in the boroughs. Furthermore, the idea that this assembly should be indirectly elected is not without precedent elsewhere, certainly in the rest of Europe. In France, the different municipalities that make up a conurbation come together to exercise jointly certain functions through the medium of a district authority or the urban community. There is no suggestion of a top tier or superior authority. The urban community is the creature of those municipalities that make up the conurbation, represented usually by their mayor or a senior deputy mayor.
Given the distinctive nature of the towns and cities that make up the area of greater London, this must be a model which is at least worthy of consideration. It

963
would put control of the greater London authority and the assembly firmly in borough hands; not one borough which would be able to torpedo any London-wide policy, but all working together with the mayor, which would be a great safeguard against the authority seeking to trespass beyond its remit. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, to the extent that the members of the greater London authority need to have a proper job. My noble friend and I have worked out that their acronym, GLAMs—Greater London Authority members—will give them something to live up to. However, that is a rather trivial point and considerably less important than looking at the detail of the job they are to do.
The restriction on the members of the assembly interfering in matters that are beyond the strategic is an issue for the Act and for the culture of the assembly as it develops. I would be very concerned indeed if London were to get a fifth-best assembly. That is not because of the quality of the individual leaders who might comprise it, as contained in this proposal, but simply that I do not believe it would be workable.
I do not believe that leading a London borough and taking a strategic role, as has rightly been described, in this great city are two jobs that can be run together. I do not believe that for any individual there would be the time. I do not believe that a borough leader could possibly make the London assembly his or her first priority. It is not practicable as regards time.
In using the term "parochial" I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, it is not because I am being patronising about it, but the job of a leader is to lead his or her borough to fight for what in those terms are parochial matters. It would be a distraction to have to deal with strategic matters and I do not believe that that could be done well. Getting a group of council leaders together might well mean that they start trading-off between themselves rather than taking an overall view.
I said at Second Reading that I have had a little experience of these issues in chairing a London-wide committee. I was very conscious of the fact that London borough members, with the best will in the world for the progress of that committee, nevertheless had to give the majority of their time to affairs in their own boroughs. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is in his place. I suspect that he has had similar experiences in chairing SERPLAN, the South-East Regional Planning Conference. That was composed of members of London boroughs, districts and counties. The job at SERPLAN happened to tag along with jobs back home.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to consultation with the boroughs. That is not ruled out by having a separate assembly. But what is most important in considering this matter, as well as the strategic overview of London, is that a group of London leaders could not act effectively as a check on the mayor. They
964
would simply not have the time or the means to do so because they have to do another very important job. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this proposal.
Baroness Hayman: I find it fascinating that, after the debate that we have just had about the importance of choice for Londoners, there is the question of how many proposals and different variants of proposals should be put forward. In the first substantive amendment that the Opposition Front Bench puts forward we have one clear, simple question, to which the answer is either yes or no. That embodies the proposal which the Opposition believe to be the best solution for London government. That is precisely what the Government are trying to do, except that we have a different view of what is the best solution for London government. But it is certainly not a multi-option choice question as part of the referendum.
It is interesting to watch the evolution, if I may put it that way, of Conservative Party thinking on this issue. It has been evolving over months. In its manifesto for London it said:
"New Labour's plans represent a new danger to Londoners. A GLC Mark 11 and an elected mayor are the last things London needs … We do not need more government in London. If it ain't broke then don't try to fix it is the Conservative maxim".
I am glad that they have come round to the view that, as regards London government, if it is not broke, it is capable of improvement and that there is a role for a mayor and an assembly.
The proposition that we have before us, of course, gives Londoners the opportunity to vote on whether they are in favour of a mayor plus an assembly made up of the leaders of the 32 London boroughs. What it would not do is give the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, the opportunity to vote for their preferred option, which is no directly elected mayor at all but a directly-elected assembly and a leader taken from within that assembly. The proposition would not allow the Government the opportunity to put forward their view, which, as we have discussed before, is a package of the two. It would merely give the people of London the opportunity to vote on the proposition which is now Conservative policy.
So let us look a little at what that means. The leaders of the London boroughs do an excellent job in representing the interests of their areas. That is their rightful role, and that is the role that we would expect them to play in relation to the GLA. There is no way in which we would wish to exclude the boroughs from working with the GLA: it is essential that they do so if the whole thing is to work smoothly. An effective borough leader would be in regular contact with the GLA.
But the GLA should not be governed by local interests. It must be able to take a strategic overview for the benefit of London as a whole. That does not mean riding roughshod over borough interests, but weighing up different positions and reaching conclusions to the benefit of London. Only a mayor, working with a directly elected assembly, can do that job.
The assembly will have a vital role to play in the new GLA. It will monitor the activities of the mayor and work with the mayor to devise strategies for London's

965
development. We are proposing that the assembly be able to choose London-wide issues and investigate them, producing reports and recommendations. It is simply not feasible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, to expect borough leaders, in addition to their heavy local duties, to play this role in their spare time. Londoners deserve an assembly wholly committed to working on a pan-London basis.
We have set out a strong case to support our package of a GLA made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, composed of those members elected to do a specific job. These amendments would create a lopsided authority, unable to deliver what London needs.
I have stated the case against an assembly indirectly elected and composed of borough leaders. I believe that, on consideration, the Committee will perhaps share our view that the roles of borough leader and assembly member cannot and should not be combined. The proposal certainly does not go with the spirit of offering choice and the amendments that will be put later to have more than one proposal put to the people of London. I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Bowness: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am delighted that she recognises the Conservative Party to be evolving. At least that proves that we are not destined for annihilation in some way: evolution is a salvation. Some things evolve much quicker than others.
This is not a proposition wrapped up as one question. Indeed, Amendment No. 10, to which I have spoken, together with Amendment No. 4, make it quite clear that we would be putting to the people of London a proposition for a directly elected mayor as one question and a proposition for an assembly comprised of London borough leaders as a second question. I am perhaps anticipating the debate on later amendments when I say that I do not believe that that will produce the consequences that the Minister fears.
I am concerned when I hear the Minister say that the Greater London assembly must not be governed by local interests. If the interests of Greater London and the capital are not the sum total of the interests of the towns and cities that make up Greater London, I do not know what their interests actually are. As I said, it is difficult to find London-wide issues which have the same impact on all the towns and cities within Greater London, one on the other. The relevance of an issue in Barnet is significantly different from its relevance in Bexley, if it has any relevance at all.
It is difficult to say that borough leaders would be unable effectively to do the job of representing their respective towns and cities because of demands on their time when we do not have before us the result of the consultation, the White Paper, still less the legislation, which detail the functions, powers and responsibilities of the Greater London assembly. If we decided in principle that the boroughs and the assembly should be made up of the leaders of the Greater London boroughs and the City of London Corporation, no doubt we would have a view about how the assembly should work and no doubt the legislation would be framed accordingly.
966
I am also concerned when I hear it said as a criticism that in an assembly the borough leaders would fight over their own parochial matters and would not be concerned with strategic matters. I have no doubt that any body comprising representatives, however appointed or elected, will have what one might call "constituency interests". However, it is unlikely that one particular parochial interest will be sufficient to outweigh the views of all the other London borough leaders who might conclude that they supported a particular proposal for the benefit of the whole of Greater London. There is not one single borough that does not have an interest in the affairs of at least part of Greater London and the neighbouring towns and cities.
As I said when moving the amendment, the London boroughs are not islands. They are all deeply concerned from an economic and social point of view with what goes on around them. It is a mistake to dismiss those who have the responsibility for the interests of the people who reside within the towns and cities that make up Greater London. One should not believe that such people will be unable to take a wider view in the interests of Greater London as a whole. In the majority of instances, I believe that they will be aware of the wider issues. Having said that, one should not condemn them for those particular instances when local constituency interests are important. As I have said, the problems of Greater London are the problems of the towns and cities that make up Greater London and of the people who live within them. One ignores that at one's peril. I cannot overemphasise how much frustration was caused under the previous structure of government in London by those top tier authorities which acted without regard for the interests of the localities which comprise Greater London.
I beg the Minister to appreciate that this is not a party political point. Once the authority is cut off from the roots of its towns and cities, I believe that it will be lost. I hear what the Minister says, but I believe that this is a matter of great importance. It is a matter on which I believe that we might conceivably be making a considerable mistake and I seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 170.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor of Hever. L.

Carnock, L.

Belstead, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Berners, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Coleraine, L.

Bowness, L.

Coleridge, L.

Brahazon of Tara. L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Brain of Wheatley, L.

Courtown, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

967

Cranworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fookes, B.

Naseby, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Norrie, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Granard, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Palmer, L.

Halsbury, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Rawlings, B.

Higgins, L.

Rees, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Home, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Hooper, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sandford, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Stewartby, L.

Jopling, L.

Stockton, E.

Kimball, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange, B.

Kintore, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lindsay, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Vivian, L.

McConnell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Weatherill, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wharton, B.

Mersey, V.

Wilcox, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alport, L.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Eatwell, L.

Annan, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Fitt, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Blease, L.

Gallacher, L.

Borrie, L.

Geraint, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Burlison, L.

Glenamara, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Goodhart, L.

Calverley, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Grenfell, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Grey, E.

Chandos, V.

Hampton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hamwee, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hankey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hardie, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Haskel, L.

David, B.

Hayman, B.

Davies, L.

Healey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Desai, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Dixon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

968

Howell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hoyle, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hughes, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rea, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Islwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Russell, E

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sandberg, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sandwich, E.

Kennet, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Sewel, L.

Leathers, V.

Shepherd, L.

Levy, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Ludford, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McNally, L.

Taverne, L.

Maddock, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thurso, V.

Meston, L.

Tope, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Varley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Nicol, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Whiny, L. [Teller.]

Orme, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Paul, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pilkeathley, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.17 p.m
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("question") and insert ("question").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and Amendment No. 8 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford. Amendment No. 6 is in my name and that of the Conservative Front Bench since it is a necessary paving amendment to the alternatives proposed in Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
The Minister described the not quite so innocent earlier amendment as a wrecking amendment. I assure her that I do not speak to Amendment No. 8 as a test of

969
political machismo. It is not proposed as an amendment to wreck the Government's proposals. It is not a matter of our questions being better than theirs. I believe that it is a proper attempt to ensure that the referendum is a good consultation related ensure proposals on offer. The Government say that their proposal is a package upon which they seek the views of voters. We have already had discussion about the difference between referendums and plebiscites, different views being taken on what those terms connote and in what context they should be used. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in the debate on the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill before Christmas, used the term "trigger ballot". That is a term well worth bringing into the jargon. It is clear that it would trigger the pursuance of proposals, but that is not on offer here.
I cannot help but continue to regard the referendum as something nearer to a consultation than to a yes/no package, because there will be a White Paper, albeit a White Paper upon which there might have been a debate. It is not a post-legislative referendum. It is important that the consultation is conducted in a manner which permits a detailed and thoughtful response. Some voters may say "yes" to a mayor but "no" to an assembly. I must be careful how I put this, but my noble friend and I would not agree with that. The Government would not agree, so they would need to take it away and consider it.
What if the answer is "no" to the single question set Out in the schedule to the Bill? The Government have already said that it is likely that they would think again. That would be right. They would not know whether the voters' objections were to the whole package or to one or other element, because, as has been said before on the Bill, the question as scheduled contains two questions.
There may be voters who, faced with the Government's question, would say "yes", but with considerable reluctance, on one element on the constitutional package. That could be a recipe for instability. The last thing we want is that the new authority should start without the confidence of Londoners. We propose a set of questions not previously debated by either Chamber. Our amendments deliberately spell out the Government's proposed package. The question has a preamble:
"The Government propose that there should be a Greater London Authority made up of an elected Assembly and a separately and directly elected Mayor".
That is to meet the point that the Government are concerned to present their proposals as a package.
Faced with that preamble, and then the two questions, the voter, who may want to vote for one but not the other element, would know the context and what he or she was doing. The questions may be capable of improvement. It has been put to me that, "Do you agree" is an aggressive phrase, and that, "Are you in favour of', would be more gentle. No doubt there are all sorts of improvements that could be made. The form of the question, following a short description of the proposal, merits some attention.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the proposition. As I said, I do not regard it as an exercise in political machismo. Today is not the end of the parliamentary process. I hope that we will receive a considered response today so that we can consider that response before the next stage. I prefer the Tories' two questions to the Government's one question, but I prefer ours to either of the others. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: I speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. It will not surprise the Committee to know that I prefer the Conservative amendment to those proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is no intention that this should be considered as a wrecking proposal. The amendment seeks to put the Government's proposal to the citizens of Greater London in two questions rather than one.
I read carefully what the Minister said in some detail on Second Reading. I am not convinced by her rejection of the proposal. If the Government are not prepared to take the risk that in a referendum people might not like the Government's proposals in their entirety, they should not be going down the referendum road. It has been said by other Members of the Committee and by myself that the Government have the ability and majority to legislate, if they so wish, subject to the parliamentary process. No one could have criticised them for doing that if that had been their choice. It was, however, their choice to say in their manifesto, and to bring forward proposals, that their plans should be put to the people of London. It is entirely appropriate that we should discuss and suggest that the question be framed in a way different from what the Government propose.
For anyone who wants genuinely to consult on the amendment there are no hidden risks. There is no hidden agenda. It merely puts the Government's proposals to the people in two questions. I do not believe that that presents the difficulties that the Minister outlined on Second Reading. If there were a "yes" to both questions, there would be no problem for the Government. If there were a "no" vote to both questions there might be a problem for the Government but not in the way the Minister foresaw. There is no constitutional settlement being imposed, as was suggested earlier today.
Let us for a moment assume that there is a vote in favour of the assembly but against the directly elected mayor. That would mean that people were either against the idea of a mayor or had been convinced by the arguments that will be deployed by others that the mayor is better drawn from the assembly itself. Either way, that result would not commit the Government to a particular course of action. But, clearly, they would have to think again and bring forward different proposals. Whether they chose to consult the people on those different proposals would be a matter for them. That would have happened because it was the view of the people whom they had set out to consult.
If the people vote for the mayor but reject the directly elected assembly, the arguments are the same. The Government's apparent unwillingness to accept the concept of two questions suggests that they are not prepared to argue the case for each and to trust the

971
people to whom they are putting the question. They will not take the risk of putting the proposals to the people in a meaningful way. It is take it or leave it. If that is so, I wonder why the legislation road was not chosen rather than the referendum road.
It is possible for the electorate—it is sophisticated enough to look at the Government's plans as they may be available at the time of the referendum—to consider those plans and to say that it does not like part of them. When we see the White Paper it may reveal plans for a mayor who is perceived to be too powerful. There may be insufficient safeguards. The proposals for the assembly may be perceived as giving the assembly too many functions at potentially too high a cost. The people may reject the part of the proposals they do not like. That would not be end of the Government's plans to reform the government of the capital, but Ministers would need to think again in the light of the people's verdict on a particular part of the proposal.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have not taken part in debates on the Bill, but I have come strongly to the view that there should be two questions. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that we had a few minutes ago on Amendment No. 3 when we were covering the same ground. There was a good deal of debate foreshadowing this amendment.
I believe that the people of London may well take the view that they would like a mayor. I hope that I am not disclosing Cabinet secrets, but perhaps I may point out that the longest single debate which we had in the Cabinet which decided to abolish the GLC was on whether there should be retained in some form or another what was then called and has been called since "a voice for London". Such were the enormities which the GLC had been getting up to, the huge extravagances and the highly damaging policies that it had pursued, the view prevailed that if one was going to get rid of it one should get rid of it lock, stock and barrel. Therefore, there was no voice for London.
I understand how opinion has moved. I enormously admire what has been done as regards collaboration between the boroughs and the various public/private sector partnerships which have grown up over London. One can understand and have sympathy with the view that what is missing is a voice for London. Therefore, I believe that it is possible that the public will say yes. They might think of the mayors of Paris and New York, for example, and that a single powerful executive voice can represent London as a whole.
At the same time, they might well believe that it went wrong last time with the 1962 legislation and with the GLC in 1964 and that what began as a reasonable division of powers between the upper tier authority of the GLC and the boroughs became a monstrosity which in area after area was totally overriding what most people regarded as being the proper function of the boroughs. Therefore, the people might well say that they will have a mayor, but in the light of experience I do not believe that we should again risk a directly elected assembly.
972
The argument which the Minister deployed—that the referendum is not about that, but about whether the public agree with the Government's package—is arrogant. I believe that the people of London are capable of examining the proposal and saying, "There are two parts to it. Yes, we want a voice for London, but we do not want to risk a second GLC". Of all the arguments that I have heard and in which I have taken part as to what should be the future of the governance of London, a common note has emerged from across the political spectrum; "We do not want a second GLC". That has been reiterated and echoed across the spectrum. The risk which people might see in the directly elected assembly is that in time it could be looking for things to do.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He makes great play of the current situation, believing that the people of London should be asked two questions. Why did not the same view come to the minds of those in the Administration which he served? Perhaps the noble Lord is nit-picking at the procedure, but he said that it was a case of killing the GLC stone dead, or reforming it, or winning the next election. However, without direct consultation with the people of London, he and his colleagues took away the GLC. Of course it had blemishes, but they could have been improved.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord will no doubt wish to make his own speech. I ask him to bear in mind that when the proposal was first put forward in the 1983 election and during the months immediately following there was an overwhelming desire to get rid of the GLC. There is ample evidence of that—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No, no!
Lord Jenkin of Roding: What happened after the expenditure of some £40 million or £50 million of ratepayers' money on propaganda was that the argument moved the other way. I do not deny that, but that is not my point. My point is that it is possible to envisage that in a referendum on the issue the London public might say, "Yes, we want a good powerful voice for London, but we do not want to risk a second GLC".
I have never forgotten canvassing in what was my constituency in the local elections during the first year of there being no GLC precepts. During that local election, I had a warmer response on the doorsteps of Wanstead and Woodford than I had had during any election I had ever fought. The people suddenly saw that they had got an incubus off their backs and they were paying only the borough rate.
I believe that those memories will live long and that when people are asked whether they should have a London-wide body they will be looking for something like a voice for London. I believe that the referendum should give the people of London an opportunity to express their choice. Under the Government's Bill, they will not have the right to do so. Indeed, the whole issue will be muddled together in only one question. I totally

973
support the proposal and I hope that when my noble friend advises us on how to respond we may support it in the Division Lobby.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I wish to repeat a question put to the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, withdrew her amendment she had no opportunity to answer the particular question and I do not apologise for raising it again. I support the proposal that there should be two questions. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of today's debate is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is convinced that London does not want a mayor but wants an assembly—
Baroness Hamwee: No. Perhaps I may respond immediately. I am not convinced because I do not presume to know what the whole of London wants. That is why I want Londoners to be consulted on both elements.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I am sure that it is understood that that is what she would want. I do not change my argument. That is what many of the Liberal Democrats want, although there were one or two interesting diversions among the speeches from those Benches. However, it seemed to be their party policy that they would like not a mayor but an assembly. We hope that that pleases the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. On the other hand, over here we have my noble friend Lord Jenkin who tells us that he believes it quite possible—I put it no higher—that Londoners will say they want a mayor but not an assembly.
Perhaps that proves to the Minister that we should find out what the people of London want; we have heard the argument for that clearly today. The Minister is convinced that we should have one question because that is the Government's package. Perhaps the Government are not prepared to go ahead unless they can have the package that they want. I hear the Minister. But I should like an answer to the Scottish question. Why was there not one question in Scotland which asked, "Do you want an assembly in Scotland with tax raising authority?". Why were they not asked in one question. first, whether they wanted an assembly or a government and, secondly. whether they wanted tax raising authority? I bring back the question to the Minister. Why were we in London not asked if we wanted tax raising authority? That could have been a third question for us. I repeat that I should have liked the answer to that to be "no", but it would not have stopped me wanting to ask the question of the people of London.
If there can be two questions in Scotland, why cannot there be two questions in London? I hope that the Minister will not, as she did on Second Reading and as she has mentioned today, refer to it as a half-considered alternative. I hope that the Minister realises that some of us have spent weeks thinking about this and it is not a half-considered alternative.
On Second Reading the Minister described those who could not understand this as "naive". She accused us of lecturing her. I wish to apologise immediately to the
974
Minister. I am not lecturing; I hope I am not naive; but I hope that the Minister will give us a convincing answer beyond saying that the question is on the paper because the Government know the answer they want.
Baroness Hayman: I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, that I made the most terrible Freudian slip when I was writing my notes in preparing for this and I did not spell Weston-Super-Mare correctly. However, we all do terrible things in anxiety states.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I am happy to forgive the Minister on this occasion.
Baroness Hayman: The noble Lord says that he has given weeks of thinking to this issue and what is the right form of government. Some Members of your Lordships' House have given years of thinking to it.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: That is insulting. I sat on the Greater London Council and that was my first political appointment. I had the privilege and honour of fighting against Sir William Fiske. I have spent my life time thinking about politics. But since this Bill has been published, I have considered its wording.
Baroness Hayman: I do not wish to denigrate the contribution to public life in this country made by the noble Lord. However, I wish to point out that the appropriate form of local government for London has been considered for many years by Members of your Lordships' House after the decision made by the Conservative Administration—described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—to abolish the Greater London Council.
In dealing with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, perhaps I may deal with the Scottish issue, and I apologise for any discourtesy in not responding to it, but the debate moved on. As regards the issue of two questions in the Scottish referendum, there were two questions in the Scottish referendum because we were addressing two distinct issues: whether or not there should be a Scottish parliament; and whether that body should have tax-varying powers. The Government were testing assent to each of those propositions. They were stand-alone propositions and had the answer to tax-varying powers been "no", it would not have destroyed the constitutional settlement that was proposed in the first question.
The reason that we included the second question is that we take a different position from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Archer. We do not believe that we should ask questions to which, if we receive the answer "yes", we should not then implement what was being supported because we do not think it the right way to go forward. That is precisely why there was not a second question in the Welsh referendum about tax-raising powers. I hope that answers that specific point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked for a considered response and I shall try to give a considered response and set out once again the reasons that the

975
Government do not believe that two questions are appropriate. The reasoning falls into two parts. I shall deal first with the fundamental issues and then deal with some of the technical issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said quite clearly—and I think he was right—that we are dealing with two major issues here, one of which is the nature of the referendum and the nature of the exercise which this Bill is trying to set up. That was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, alluded. The other issue deals with the appropriate and best form of government for London.
Perhaps I may repeat—I apologise if I am restating some of the earlier debate—that the nature of the referendum is not some sort of mega opinion poll. It is not an oversized market research project, canvassing a range of constitutional options. It is not the largest focus group ever seen by any spin doctor. It is a proposition to test the assent of the people of London to the proposals which the Government are putting to them.
I must suggest to the Committee that it is not arrogant to say that as a government. It is responsible of a government to make absolutely clear what are the proposals. Perhaps I may illustrate that. Earlier this afternoon, the Committee voted for an amendment that said we should publish a Bill with the White Paper weeks before the referendum takes place. If we have two questions on the ballot paper giving, as I shall suggest later, not two possible answers but up to five possible answers, what will the Bill say? The Bill could not describe the detail to enable Londoners to be clear as to what they were voting about because there will be several different propositions to be voted upon. There is the proposition that we have talked about. There is the proposition which the Liberal Democrats would like of a directly elected assembly without a directly elected mayor. There is the proposition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, of a directly elected mayor without a directly elected assembly. How could that be expressed clearly and definitively within the Bill when there are several different propositions?
I return to how we see the referendum in the process. It is a staging post in our proposals to bring forward a strategic, city-wide authority for our capital. We made clear our commitment to a balanced and accountable constitutional settlement of a greater London authority comprising a separately elected mayor and a separately elected assembly in our manifesto. We made it clear also that we should test support for that proposition through the mechanism of a referendum.
The Government's conviction is that for London to have the best from its authority, it is necessary to have both a mayor and a separately elected assembly. That is why we have put forward a clear and comprehensive single question. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, suggested that there are two parts to the question. If we had not explained what the authority comprised, we should be accused of not giving the detail that people needed to understand what they are voting on. We have put forward a clear and comprehensive single question that allows people to express a view on that package.
976
To argue for more than one question both misunderstands the nature of the referendum proposed and threatens the integrity of the greater London authority that we are proposing. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that in his view, there was a great theme of not wishing to recreate an elected authority like the GLC. We have made it very clear earlier that we have no intention of recreating the GLC. However, the noble Lord's view was that public feeling was that there should not be another elected assembly.
I should point out that another theme has emerged as a result of the views expressed regarding the proposals; namely, that we should not have a mayor untrammelled by any form of democratic accountability to a separately elected assembly. That is a very serious and fundamental part of the package that we believe to be the best for London. Indeed, London needs both the visibility and the advocacy of the elected mayor and the accountability and the balance of the elected assembly. The authority will be an interdependent whole, not two separate entities which could exist successfully independent of one another. For those reasons I believe that the amendments before the Committee today are fatally flawed. They threaten both the nature of the referendum that we are suggesting and the absolute essence of the authority that the Government believe to be right.
It has been said during the debate that there are no hidden risks in the proposed questions. I have to challenge that view. I believe that the questions, which look so simple, about offering choice do not do so. Clearly and simply, there are two choices and two questions. I certainly do not dispute that there are a number of views, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, which illustrate differing opinions as to how London should be governed. Today we have discussed the views of the Front Benches in this Chamber. However, I am sure that there are other views about other constitutional arrangements that could be made. I should like to prove to Members of the Committee that even the limited range of options expressed from the Front Benches in this Chamber as regards the best form of London government would not be clearly and unambiguously addressed by the two questions proposed in either amendment.
Let us start with the Government's position. It has been stated that the Government's proposal would be voted on by way of these two questions because people could vote "yes" to both of them. However, as I have made clear, the dual elements of the mayor and the assembly are two parts of one proposal. How, with the amendments, would I as a London voter be able to express my choice—and I stress "my choice"—that I want a mayor and an assembly and that, if I cannot have both of them and the checks and balances are not in the package, then I would rather have neither? How do I express that view with those two supposedly simple questions?
I move on to the Liberal Democrat position which, I understand, is that the best answer would be an assembly that is directly elected and a mayor who is not. How would one differentiate when people vote for a directly elected assembly but say "no" to a directly

977
elected mayor? How would one know whether those people wanted a mayor elected by, or in some way coming out of, the membership of the assembly rather than some sort of collective leadership which did not have a mayor?
The mayor without an assembly—or, to be more specific, a mayor with an indirectly elected assembly comprising borough leaders—is of course the position of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and his party. Indeed, that is what we voted on earlier. But how does the Londoner who agrees with the proposition that, as well as an elected mayor, there should also be an assembly but indirectly elected, differentiate himself on these two questions from the Londoner who wants an elected mayor but no assembly at all? That is not such a wild position. In the process of evolution of the noble Lord's party, I believe that that was its position for a little while. It is possible that some of its supporters in London still adhere to that view. How does that voter make it clear on these two questions that that is what he is looking for?
Both versions of the questions do not offer clear choices to voters. They raise the prospect of people's votes carrying the day for a package with which they do not agree. That is not good for democratic choice, for clarity or, indeed, for an effective authority. It is a recipe for confusion. Two questions would force people to guess what the outcome of their vote would be and then oblige them to vote accordingly.
The British people showed some sophistication as tactical voters in the last election in their determination to get rid of the last government. However, I do not believe it to be proper to rely on them to do so again in a referendum on the governance of London.
As I explained, there are a range of possible outcomes to the two sets of questions—a mayor and assembly together, a mayor without an assembly, and an assembly without a mayor. But even these outcomes do not reflect the essential detail of the preferred positions either of the Government Front Bench or of the Liberal Democrats which are, respectively, a mayor with an indirectly elected assembly and a mayor indirectly elected from a directly elected assembly.
Given the range of possible outcomes that two questions could produce, we must also consider just how voters would make an informed choice. Great play has been made about the importance of clarity over the issues in the referendum. I support that; indeed, that is what we were talking about in terms of having a debate and in terms of the White Paper spelling out most clearly the implications involved. However, it would be practically impossible to provide clarity and certainty if the two questions were posed on whether to have a mayor and an assembly separately with all the variations and permutations that I described. I do not believe that people would find the choice on the ballot paper clear and comprehensible; indeed, it would be extremely confusing if a White Paper had to show alternative versions of what was actually on offer for Londoners as regards the alternative permutations that might be the result of the referendum.
978
There are severe technical deficiencies with a two-question referendum. However, the crux of the matter to which I wish to return is that the proposed amendments offer the possibility of outcomes which the Government believe to be wrong and unworkable. I do not believe it to be correct or justified to accuse the Government of arrogance in that respect. It is not the arrogance of power; it is the responsibility of power of a governing party. It is wilfully to misunderstand both the nature of the referendum that we propose and the strength of feeling of the Government that it would be wrong to put to the people of London a package which they would not be willing to implement.
I can do no better than to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, expressed on Second Reading when he said that,
"referenda should not be exploratory and open-ended. They should test the views of the people about government proposals. The first duty is therefore that of government to make such proposals and to argue for them … If the people … do not like the Government's proposals—for two separately elected components of the Greater London authority—the Government will have to think again".—[Official Report, 15/12/97; col. 430.1]
That is absolutely right. That is a risk that the Government are prepared to take. We have been accused of not having the courage to put our proposition to the people and allow for a range of options. That really is an unreasonable construction of the position in which the Government find themselves. We intend to seek the consent of the people to a considered package—an entire framework for government. Londoners will have been fully informed of the Government's proposals in a comprehensive White Paper to be published well in advance of the referendum. They would then be able to vote in the full knowledge of what they are voting for, or what they are voting against. That is clear, fair and democratic. There has been some talk about the possible totalitarian nature of referenda and plebiscites. It is not totalitarian to put one question: it is totalitarian to have only one possible answer.
The Government accept the possibility that the people of London will not agree with the proposition placed before them. We favour a mayor and an assembly as a complete framework—a mayor to provide a voice for London and articulate London's interests both at home and abroad and an assembly to provide essential checks and balances. Those two elements are the cornerstone of our plans for a new authority for London. It is on that package that we intend to seek the consent of Londoners.
Our proposed single question will deliver a decisive referendum outcome. If there is a yes vote, we can get on with delivering our proposals. If Londoners vote no, we shall not implement those proposals. It is as simple and as straightforward as that. But there will be a clear expression of public opinion, one way or the other. That, as I said earlier, is exhibiting not the arrogance of power, but the responsibility of power in preparing workable proposals which, if approved, the people can trust—we have had talk of trust—will be implemented.
We have consulted widely on these proposals and we are paying close attention to the views put to us. This referendum now seeks to establish the consent of the

979
people of London to those considered proposals. It will underpin London's new democratic settlement. We are willing to subject our proposals to the verdict of Londoners. What we are not willing to do is extend to Londoners unworkable, ill-advised propositions that we would not be prepared to implement. I do not believe that any responsible government should do that. For that reason I urge the Committee to reject these amendments.
6 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: The Minister remarked early in her reply that the proposals for London government had been debated by parliamentarians for years. That is, of course, right, but they have not been debated by the people of London who have not been given that chance. They have had to say yes or no or to have their vote for particular parties at particular elections interpreted, indirectly, as an indication of their preferences. That is why it is right to have a referendum as people may have voted Labour in the general election last May for a host of reasons. They may not have focused on the proposals for London government. That is why it is right to test those proposals in a referendum. What is not right is to create a take it or leave it situation. Many of the Minister's arguments are forced and artificial. There is a danger that her arguments may be turned on their head.
The Minister said that if we adopted a two question referendum, either our version or the Conservative version, if people were unhappy about the links between the assembly and the directly elected mayor, they may be driven to vote no, no. I put it to the Minister that if there is only a single question for the package, those people who are unhappy with one element of the package—let us say that they do not want the assembly, they only want the mayor, although that is the opposite of what I believe—will be driven to vote no and the Government will not know why they have voted no. Therefore the same arguments apply to the Minister's package as apply to splitting the question into two elements.
On the same point, the Minister said that people might be driven to vote no, no because they did not know the details of the relationship we are discussing. That reinforces the arguments that were dealt with earlier this afternoon for putting a great deal more flesh on the bones of the proposals as regards the checks and balances of the assembly on the mayor. That is precisely the reason we want Londoners to have those details before they vote; namely, so that they will know the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. It is precisely because it is salutary for parliaments and governments to have to address the concerns of the people that it is wise to give people an opportunity to have a real debate and real choices.
The Minister placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the Government find these proposals convincing. If I may say with respect, that is neither here nor there. It is the people of London who need to be convinced by the proposals. The Minister defended herself against the charge of arrogance. I feel that she must be sensitive to that charge if she addresses it at all. That charge could be made to stick if Londoners are not given a choice in this matter. In answer to the point
980
made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, about Scotland, the Minister said that in the case of Scotland there had been two questions because there were two distinct issues—the parliament and executive for Scotland, and the tax raising powers—and that an answer of no to the tax raising question would not have destroyed the constitutional settlement because the aspects were separable. I suggest to the Minister that that is precisely the case as regards the Government's proposals for the government of London; the two elements of mayor and assembly can be separated. We see that in practice. In Paris, for example, there is an assembly which elects the mayor. In Paris there is not a directly elected mayor. It is perfectly practicable to have an assembly which elects its own mayor, leader or whatever.
I believe at one point the Minister said that people would not know whether there would be collective leadership or one leader of the assembly. I believe that she is in danger of entering the realms of fantasy. The norm of government in this country is to have a leader elected by an assembly, parliament, council or whatever. I have called some of her arguments forced and artificial. I refer to the question: why will you not allow the people of London to choose? Her only real answer to that question is: we do not want them to have the choice because we believe that we are right. The Minister does not have any credible answers and she has been forced into giving incredible responses.
I am afraid that I am guilty of the charge that was levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, at my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It was I who said that I thought that the people of London would not vote for a directly elected mayor only. I could be proved wrong and I am ready to be proved wrong. I cannot say I would be happy to be proved wrong. However, that gives me, as it gives others, the strongest incentive to campaign before May to convince people according to our beliefs on what would be best for London. It is in precisely that context—and not in the context of a take it or leave it package—that Londoners are likely to be most engaged and most involved in the outcome. The people of London did not agree with the Tories when they abolished the government for London. The word "stability" has been mentioned on several occasions this afternoon. I believe there is a common wish in this Chamber to create a system of government for London which will last a long time, will be stable and will deliver good government for London. The best basis for securing that is to allow Londoners to have the maximum debate on the options.
Baroness Hamwee: I have paused to see whether there are any further contributions. My noble friend has responded to a number of points made by the Minister. When she asked what Londoners might expect by way of leadership if they voted for an assembly but not a directly elected mayor, I wrote down "Blair". As my noble friend has said, most government bodies and parliaments have a leader who is a voice of that body. It is quite reasonable—of course this would be part of the debate—to allow Londoners to make that assumption.

981
The Minister said that we must not have a mayor untrammelled by an assembly. That was pretty much the same point as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, earlier. We are still not convinced that it is possible for an assembly to have sufficient control over a directly elected mayor. That is why we want to have a debate on this matter and that is why we wish to present the two points separately to the electorate of London.
The Minister also said that if the answer is a clear no, proposals will be dropped. I fear that that could lead to shelving something which the voters want—one element of that package.
I do not think that the Minister addressed the point that the amendment proposes a preamble to set the context. However, I shall read Hansard to check whether she addressed that point.
In introducing Amendment No. 6 I said the matter is so serious and capable of continued debate that I shall be prepared to consider it again. It is an issue to which I believe we must return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule [FORM OF BALLOT PAPER]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call Amendment No. 7. If the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, intends to move it, I must point out that if the amendment is agreed to it will pre-empt Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and I shall not be able to call them.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert—
("Question 1: Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor for Greater London?
Put a cross (X) in one box:
YES□
NO□
Question 2: Are you in favour of a directly elected assembly for Greater London?
Put a cross (X) in one box:
YES□
NO□")
The noble Lord said: I was under the impression that I had spoken to the amendment when we discussed Amendment No. 6.
In replying to that debate, the Minister, interestingly enough, referred to the many discussions that have taken place over the years about the form of local government in London. For a moment I wondered whether she was agreeing with me that what had gone before, and what we might now undertake, was the reorganisation of local government in London.
In replying to noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Minister accused me of wanting to put ill-advised propositions to the people. I ask only that we put the Government's proposals to the people. The Minister said that if there was a no vote to the composite question that the Government wish to put she would have to think again. If there were two questions, that is all that we ask the Government to do in the event of a no reply to one of them.
The referendum does not commit the Government to anything, especially if the answer is different from that which they seek. In the face of a no vote for an assembly, I would not expect the Government to legislate for an executive mayor with no checks and balances and no kind of assembly.
In Amendment No. 7 we do not ask the Government to put our alternative proposal for an assembly of borough leaders. We are putting the Government's own proposals. If that were refused by the people, the Government would have to think again; and likewise if there were a positive vote for an assembly and against a mayor.
I believe that the alternatives envisaged by the Minister regarding the outcome are too confusing and would not give the result which she suggests. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I believe that the form in which we put the question is one of the most important factors in connection with the proposals. Like the noble Baroness, I shall read again carefully what the Minister said. With regard to Amendment No. 7, and the form of the question, I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage in our deliberations.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 3, after ("government's") insert ("draft").
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee long on Amendment No. 9. It is very short. It provides that the word "draft" should be inserted on the form on the ballot paper. We have discussed already that these can be only draft proposals, given that we shall not seek the public's view on legislation that has already passed through Parliament. I hope that the Minister will concede that in the interests of accuracy people should understand that the proposals are not firm and that the question should include the word "draft". I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I understand the spirit of what the noble Lord argues. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. We have made it clear that the White Paper will set out clear and detailed proposals for the establishment of a Greater London authority, and that the people of London will be able to make an informed decision in the referendum on the basis of those proposals.

983
Clarity is tremendously important. That is one of the reasons that I argued that the more possible variations, the more uncertain the results, the less clear the position, the more one is in a position of having to analyse people's motivations for their votes.
I do not believe that inserting this single word would assist. I suspect that those who are suspicious of government would seize upon the fact that these are only draft proposals and would throw back at us that we were asking for carte blanche for draft proposals which we might change at any time in the future. We shall certainly enable Londoners to make a clear and considered judgment on clear and detailed proposals. But I do not think the suggestion that the insertion of the word "draft" would help is correct.
Lord Bowness: I thank the Minister for her reply. I do not pretend to be happy with it. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Counting officers]:
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 14, after ("certify") insert ("the total number of eligible electors in the area for which he is appointed,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.
In respect of Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, I believe that it is necessary and desirable properly to ascertain the measure of support in specific parts of the capital for the proposals. People will want to know how their borough voted. I hope that the Government will be able to give a favourable response to this group of amendments.
My principal concern relates to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. Those amendments provide that at least 50 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum shall have voted, and that at least 30 per cent. of the people entitled to vote shall have voted in favour of the proposal.
The Government have embarked upon the reorganisation of the government of Greater London. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister perceives that as a regional or local government reorganisation. However, the Government seek the approval of the voters of Greater London through a referendum. They propose a system of regional or local government which will be unique in the United Kingdom. For the first time there will be a direct election for an executive official. The structure will not at this time be replicated in any other authority in the United Kingdom. To that end it is quite unlike any other reorganisation of the government of London which has taken place in the past.
The Minister took me to task for referring to the abolition of the former GLC as a local government reorganisation. But, I repeat, that is essentially what it was—the removal of one tier of local government in its area and a redistribution of the functions between the
984
remaining first tier authorities. That happened more recently elsewhere within the United Kingdom and was certainly not described as anything other than a local government reorganisation. It was not very different, I suggest, from the creation of the LCC or the redistribution of functions between the former metropolitan counties and the metropolitan districts. But this reorganisation will be different.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, alluded to this matter in a previous debate. London has always struggled to find a lasting form of government. There is a history, albeit over different areas from time to time, of a struggle between what might be described as the top tier, or the centre, and the boroughs, the old metropolitan boroughs and, as they now exist, the London boroughs. At different times one or the other has been in the ascendency. I have no doubt that it would be to the benefit of the area of the capital as a whole if there could be an acceptance of a particular form that the governance of the capital should take.
I suggest that all the reorganisations, not merely the abolition of the GLC, have been surrounded with controversy. It would be a pity if this reorganisation suffered in the same way. One way to ensure that it does is to have a particular solution imposed upon it by a minority of voters. It is for that reason that we propose two thresholds: the first to ensure that at least 50 per cent. of the electorate, or 2½ million of the 5 million voters of Greater London, have voted; the second to ensure that the proposals are approved by at least 30 per cent. of the possible voters, or 1½ million voters, of Greater London in total. It is, I suggest a modest proposal, but one which, if accepted, would at least enable the Government to know with a degree of confidence that their proposals had the support of a majority of the people. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend Lord Tope has just suggested that I should have checked the figures before the debate. We believe that it is not impossible, indeed not unlikely, that all London boroughs. or certainly the majority of them, have governments imposed on them at local level. It had occurred to me before, although I have not pursued the figures, that were this test to be applied to some local government elections it would produce a very embarrassing answer, possibly even to some of us taking part in this debate.
We have had discussions around the question of thresholds in connection with other referendums. I do not regard it as a part of the way in which our system works to require that a threshold is to be met. It is the fault of politicians if we cannot stir up voters to express their support or opposition to whatever or whoever is being proposed. After all, our voters have the right not to vote.
I wonder too in this case what the outcome would be if the thresholds were not met. Would there be no government for London and no mayor? Or would it mean, in the case of members of the assembly, members for some parts of London but not for others? I simply leave that idea hanging in the air.

985
We do not support—in fact we very much oppose—the suggestion of thresholds both for turnout and for support. It may be that our democracy in the United Kingdom will move forward and that better turnouts will be achieved. I do not believe that requiring a level of turnout is the way to achieve participation in the democratic process.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I wonder whether the Minister would consider the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, at Second Reading, which I expected her to mention. I think that everybody in this Chamber who believes that London needs a mayor, a Greater London authority, or whatever it might be, believes it would be sensible for as many people as possible to vote. It would not be incredible to suggest that if the turnout was over 50 per cent. one would feel more confident.
I gained the impression from the Secretary of State for Scotland that one of the things that most delighted him was the turnout in the Scottish referendum. I believe exactly the same. It is vitally important that we have a high turnout.
To return to my former point, I wonder whether the Minister will reconsider the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Perhaps the time allowed for voting on this one occasion should be extended. No one could then say that the voting figures would have been higher if people coming into London early in the morning and those going out of London late at night had had the opportunity to give their opinion. Will the Minister be kind enough to consider that point?
Baroness Hayman: We shall deal with the issue of opening hours when we debate a separate amendment shortly. However, it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, poses the question in that way. The debate then enters the realms of matters raised in relation to the two questions—of analysing the "might-have-beens", the motivations, the "what-would-have-happened-ifs", and of what people really meant when they voted "yes" to one and "no" to the other. It raises all sorts of elements that work against clarity and simplicity. We believe that there are great virtues in clarity and simplicity in terms of this referendum.
The Government are opposed to artificial thresholds. We very much support the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her contribution to the debate on the amendment rather than on her specific point at Second Reading about the dangers of artificial thresholds. They can be turned into wrecking devices, and any figures are open to argument and interpretation.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London made clear in another place, this referendum will be advisory, as is the case with all pre-legislative referenda. The referendum is a device employed by Parliament to test the views of the public on a clear proposition and point of principle—in this case whether Londoners are in favour of our plans for a Greater London authority.
986
After the referendum it will be for the Government and Parliament to reflect on the results. That is why the insertion of any form of threshold would be inappropriate. The people of London will vote in a referendum and Parliament will take that vote into account. I share the views expressed about maximising the turnout. There are many effective ways of stimulating interest and making people feel really involved in the issue.
While I do not want to bandy definitions and semantics with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I hope and believe that when we come to the election for the Greater London authority, it will be seen as less dry than simply a reorganisation of local government. We are seeking to create strategic city-wide leadership for the capital of this country. That is an exciting and important development. We need the commitment and participation of as many Londoners as possible.
We are confident that we shall have a high turnout in May and a real vote of clear support for our proposals. But even in the event of a low turnout, there is no case for allowing those who stay at home effectively to be counted as "no" votes. That is reading into them a motivation of which we cannot be certain. Staying at home hardly indicates burning opposition. If Londoners wish to accept or reject our proposals, they must participate in the referendum. We will give them that opportunity, and encourage them to use it. That we believe is the democratic way to proceed.
These amendments, if enacted, could produce a situation where we held a referendum, the people of London could turn out in their millions to make their democratic choice and the chief counting officer would be unable to certify the results if fewer than 50 per cent. or 30 per cent. had voted in a manner acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in his proposition. That would be a ridiculous situation. The people of London deserve to know how they have voted. Parliament, having provided for the referendum, would be entitled to ask what the answer was. It would then be obliged to take account of that answer and the votes cast. They would have to consider them in their deliberations. But I suggest to the Committee that imposing false and arbitrary thresholds would not be helpful on this occasion. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may comment on what the noble Baroness said in opening. She invited the Committee to remember that this was merely an advisory process and that it would be open to Parliament thereafter to decide that, because a turnout had been low, the "yes" vote was not sufficiently vigorous to justify a change.
The reality is that—and Wales is the proof of this—if there is the narrowest of majorities or the lowest of turnouts, the Government will let out a shout of delight and say: "This is what London wants". Therefore we have to treat it as though it is more than an advisory device, as though a substantive question was being answered.

987
That brings me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which was taken up by the Minister. My noble friend referred to her Second Reading speech and, not having heard it, I pause for a moment to recollect. The noble Baroness said that as in an election, one should be satisfied with a low turnout and if one objected to the result of an election or a referendum on a low turnout, one should also object to the imposition, by minority, of a government on a local authority or on the whole of London.
That is not a fair comparison because when we come to a general election or local authority election we have to produce an incoming administration. We cannot have a vacuum. Someone must appoint whoever will occupy the position of power for the next four years or however long it is. But we do not have to have a change in London; it is perfectly acceptable to leave things as they are. It would not be an end to the world, nor would there be an end to the government of London. Therefore, we need more than acquiescence by a majority in a decision by a minority. That adds great strength to my noble friend's argument that there should be a threshold. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us whether she would regard a majority on a 25 per cent. turnout as being sufficient grounds for endorsing the Government's policy.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I find some of the arguments which have been addressed by the Conservative Party during this debate pretty strange. The noble Baroness referred to the idea that non-voters could impose a veto, but in my view that is ludicrous. If people feel strongly on the issue or have a firm view one way or the other, they will come out and vote. If there is a disappointingly low turnout, the Conservative Party and those who agree with it can use it in the argument which will take place in both Houses. However, the idea that the non-voter can veto a major proposal for a constitutional change is one of the strangest that I have ever heard in this Chamber.
Baroness Hayman: I am not sure that I can add a great deal to that. Perhaps I may respond once again on the issues. We are opposed to artificial thresholds. The results of the referendum will have to be considered by both government and Parliament. Government have made quite clear that if the proposals are not voted for by a majority then they will not pursue them. That is a risk that we will take. We would be disappointed, but we will respect the democratic will of the people of London and reflect it. Once we go beyond that proposition, we get into a murky area. We run into all the dangers of interpreting the votes of people who abstained. I suggest that that is dangerous and urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bowness: I thank the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I may deal with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Like my noble friend Lord Elton, I consider there to be a significant difference between elections and what the Liberal Democrat Front Bench has just described as "constitutional change". The desire to have constitutional change endorsed by a
988
significant majority rather than imposed by a small minority is something about which we are entitled to be concerned.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may intervene, if the Minister—I mean the noble Lord. The slip was not even Freudian. If the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has finished demolishing me, perhaps I may ask him where his proposition fits in with the Salisbury convention. I do not understand. One can have a minority of people voting for a government who have said that they will take certain constitutional changes forward, but when putting them to the vote one requires a particular threshold, whatever the vote for that government in the first place.
Lord Bowness: I am sorry if I gave the impression of seeking to demolish the noble Baroness. I certainly would not wish to take such drastic action.
It is quite novel for someone from the Opposition Front Bench to be put in the position of answering questions. I am not sure that I have to answer, but I shall do so. We return again to the point that the Government have chosen to take the matter forward by way of a referendum. As has already been said this afternoon, of course there was an election; of course the Government have manifesto commitments and they could have chosen to legislate for this arrangement in London without putting it to a referendum. Having decided that it should go to a referendum, it is entirely legitimate for us to argue that we want to satisfy ourselves that a majority of people in London are in support.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the Minister's remarks about the referendum being advisory and the Government having to reflect on the result. There seems to me to be a difference in the views being expressed by the Minister. On the one hand she says that the Government would have to reflect on the result. On the other hand she appears to accept that a "yes" vote would give the Government all the authority they need to proceed with their proposition.
If there is to be genuine reflection, then I ask the Minister how derisory the vote has to be before the Government do not proceed with their proposals. What is the threshold that the Minister would find acceptable? Clearly, by saying that the Government would reflect upon the result, the Minister must have in her mind a result which would put into question the implementation of the proposals. It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that we should seek proper endorsement of the proposals. These amendments are in a group and the Minister did not deal with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 and the declarations in respect of various entries. But whatever her response, if she is to make one, I shall wish to press the point made in Amendment No. 13 when it is put to the Committee.
Baroness Hayman: As regards the issue of reflection on the result, Parliament would reflect on the result of an advisory referendum. It is not possible for a referendum to bind Parliament. Parliament must scrutinise the legislation.

989
The Government have made their position clear. The threshold for acting is a majority of those voting being in favour of the proposition. That is the only clear way to proceed, otherwise we are making assumptions about the opinions of those who have not voted that we cannot justify. We would be in the same position as before of discussing the difficulty of interpreting motivation.
Those who have stayed at home are said to have voted against the proposition. But it could equally be said that they were in favour of the proposition, because if they were profoundly opposed they would have gone and voted accordingly. It is not in the interests of clarity or good government to have artificial thresholds. We have made our position clear. It is not possible to bind Parliament by referendum. I made the point that Parliament would reflect on both the turnout and the views expressed.
Lord Bowness: I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily. The Minister has not dealt with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, but perhaps we can come back to those at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) The Chief Counting Officer shall not certify the total of votes cast for each answer under subsection (4) above unless at least 50 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum for the whole of Greater London have voted.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
6.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 141.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Banbury of Southam, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Belstead, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Berners, B.

Downshire, M.

Bethell, L.

Elton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Blaker, L.

Fookes, B.

Blatch, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bowness, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Byford, B.

Higgins, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Holderness, L.

Carnock, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Home, E.

Chesham, L.

Howe, E.

Coleridge, L.

Inchcape, E.

Colwyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jopling, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Keyes, L.

990

Kimball, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kingsland, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Seccombe, B.

Luke, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Marlesford, L.

Sharples, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Stockton, E.

Mottistone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Palmer, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wilcox, B.

Young, B.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 141 names. The Clerks recorded 140 names.]
6.53 p.m.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Referendum: supplementary]:
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 26, after ("shall"), insert (", subject to subsection (IA) below,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. There has already been reference to the hours the polls will be open. Since by common consent it appears that this referendum is more than a mere local government matter, it seems that the voters should be given the maximum opportunity to cast their votes. I am sure we will be told that if that were to happen it would create enormous difficulties. However, I believe that every effort must be made to overcome them.
Two elections on the same day is not unknown. Indeed, that is what is proposed in this instance. The referendum question or questions will he on separate ballot papers from those being issued for the local government election taking place on the same date. We ask that polling stations should be open for the extra hours. I am not a returning officer and it is not for me to go into the practicalities, but if there is a statutory prohibition on local government voting papers being issued between specified hours, then between those hours no local government papers will be issued. If people want to vote in the local elections and referendum they will attend the poling station during the normal local government polling hours. If they wish to vote in the referendum but are unable or unwilling to vote for their council candidate, they may attend during the extended hours. Indeed, it must be the case that any voter attending during the normal local government voting hours can exercise a choice as to whether he or she votes in one or both polls being held on the same day. Therefore, the voters may create some of the difficulties which it may be suggested would be caused by accepting the amendment.
Similarly, there must have been instances—indeed there were on 1st May this year—of parliamentary elections being held on the same day as local elections.
992
I am sure that the great experience of returning officers across Greater London can be drawn upon to cope with this matter. We have to remember that we are talking about Greater London. We are talking about a high proportion of the voters being commuters, many of whom will leave home very early to get into central London and many of whom will return home very late at night.
On an earlier amendment I emphasised the need for there being acceptance of the outcome and some stability in the future governance of Greater London. Therefore, whatever the outcome of the referendum, the participation of the greatest number of people is to be encouraged. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I was grateful for the introduction to this amendment given to me earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare. We support the amendments. As I said at Second Reading, and as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has said, if we expect people who live on the outskirts of Greater London and who work the long hours which so many people do work in central London to be able to take part in this election—we want as many as possible to take part—we should seriously consider the extension of hours proposed in the amendment.
I appreciate that there are more possibilities for postal and proxy votes than there were some years ago. The regulations governing postal and proxy votes have been loosened. Nevertheless, applications for postal and proxy votes have to be in so relatively early during the course of any campaign that when one knocks on a door during an election campaign one finds voters who say, "I have missed it. I did not know that I could apply for a proxy vote. I am almost always away from home for hours which preclude me from voting between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and it is now too late. I have lost my democratic rights". I have been embarrassed when trying to explain and to some extent defend that system.
Local elections should take place between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Indeed, I suggest that there could be some confusion. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, on this point. It would he preferable for the hours of the referendum and the local council elections to be the same. I am not aware of what the technical requirements would be to change the hours of local government elections. Perhaps this is the opportunity to ask the Minister to explain what would be required to extend the hours for that one occasion. I hope that the Government will be addressing this point in their review of local government. On this occasion I believe that Londoners should be given the opportunity to vote before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. on both matters.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may put a contrary view. To keep polling stations open for 15 hours at a stretch is an expensive business, particularly if the count then has to take place in the small hours of the morning, as usually happens. I take the points made by other noble Lords about commuters. However, as I understand it, in the United States the voting for presidential elections and all other elections normally finishes at about 6 p.m.

993
Commuting distances in the United States are probably greater on average than they are in this country. Therefore, I am not in favour of the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: Perhaps I may speak against that. The impression is that polling finishes at 6 p.m. It finishes in one part of America three hours before that takes place in another part of America. That gives the impression of voting finishing at 6 p.m., but it carries on until 9 o'clock. I still feel very strongly that this is a one-off situation. Even if the Minister is going to speak against this amendment, I wonder whether she might consider going back and saying that there is strong feeling on the matter. It is a one-off situation.
In the previous debate the Minister said that she hoped that there would be many ways—and I totally agree with her—of getting people to vote. There is the need to gain their enthusiasm and let them know that this great debate is taking place. They need to know that the vote is taking place.
The truth of the matter is that we live in the goldfish bowl of politics. We discuss it every day of our lives. Those of us who have worked in the other place or who have canvassed on the street, know that people are not all that interested in politics. Only a tiny percentage of us are vitally interested in it. In order to make sure that we get everyone who possibly can to vote on the subject, I believe that the Government should reconsider and say, "Let us on this one occasion have no excuses for there not being a high vote. Let us have no excuses at all so on this one occasion let us have a vote that starts at 7 a.m. and ends at 10 p.m.".
I can understand the Minister being told by civil servants, "This will cost a lot of money and be very inconvenient. It will be hard to carry out". Why do we not just say, "Rubbish! We want to carry it out and get the highest vote possible"? If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in local government reorganisation this matter is already being considered, perhaps this referendum is the ideal event on which to make it work. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter very seriously indeed because I know that she wants the highest vote possible.
Lord Tugendhat: Perhaps I may briefly support my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare on this point. I take up the reference to the United States. I believe it to be notoriously the fact that voting figures in the United States are among the lowest in the Western world. Perhaps the rather limited voting hours contribute to that. It is also a sad fact—I speak as a former London MP, although that was a long time ago—that the turnout in London tends to be rather lower than in the rest of the country. There are a number of reasons for that. It is difficult to maintain the register. People move from one flat to another and so forth. Nonetheless, there are very great difficulties about voting in London. The turnout figures at national, local and European elections reflect that situation.
994
Therefore, when there is a one-off poll of this sort in the process of creating a new system of government in the nation's capital, it seems, as my noble friend said, extremely important that there should be the maximum turnout, whichever way people wish to vote. Therefore, if one is going to keep the polls open longer there is a very clear justification for it.
I add one final thing. I know that we have a modernising government and one that believes in a young Britain and all the rest of it. Therefore, it will not have escaped the attention of Ministers that shops, offices, places of business and entertainment now keep very different hours from the past. If the Government are going to modernise our institutions, including, as I understand it—and there is a committee meeting this very day—this House; if they are going to change the State Opening of Parliament and all kinds of other things, it is a very small request to make that they should try to ensure that the largest possible number of Londoners can vote in a matter that concerns them as deeply as this.
Baroness Hayman: I certainly share the views which have been expressed that we should try to make sure that the largest possible number of Londoners participate in the vote on the setting up of the Greater London authority. For that reason I welcome the sentiments behind these amendments. It is clearly in the interests of democracy that all who wish to vote are able to do so. That consideration is at the heart of the Government's plans for the referendum.
I am interested in the points made about how in future we may think about less conventional ways, if I may put it that way, of voting and enabling people to register their choice, and may perhaps think a little more outside the box than simply adding an hour in the early morning and late at night. Any time that one adds an hour and has cut-off hours, there will be some people whose working or travelling patterns are affected by that.
Details for the combined poll will properly be addressed in secondary legislation. I am pleased to be able to inform the Committee that draft secondary legislation was placed in the Library of the House yesterday. I hope that that will answer some of the queries of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that he felt I had not addressed on previous amendments. I hope that makes it absolutely clear that it will be possible to see, from the declaration of local results, borough by borough, how people have voted. We have no interest in being anything other than transparent in these issues.
It is our intention that, as far as possible, arrangements for the referendum should mirror those for borough elections. Arrangements for local polls, including opening hours, are well established. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that it would be very confusing to have two different sets of hours operating for the two elections that are taking place. When general and local elections coincide on the same day, the hours are standardised. We intend to do that for London, but to follow local polling hours. Obviously, that is not a course of action that Members of the Committee have suggested.

995
I believe that there is little evidence advanced to the effect that extending the voting hours would have the sort of marked effect on turnout that we are all seeking to achieve. Turnout in London elections was 46 per cent. in 1994 and 48 per cent. in 1990. It is already relatively high for local elections. It suggests that perhaps polling hours are a less significant influence on voting behaviour in London than in places such as rural Scotland or rural Wales, where people may have to travel very considerable distances to vote.
Nevertheless, I take the point that has been made during the Committee's deliberations, that there are difficulties for those who have long journeys to work, those who work particularly long hours or those who have other difficulties in getting away from work. We are committed to ensuring that everyone who wants a vote can get one, either in person, by post or by proxy. Those who cannot attend their local polling station because of personal or work commitments would be able to apply for an absent vote. The availability of absent votes is going to be central to the publicity campaign, making it clear to Londoners that the referendum is taking place.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: Do the Government yet know what the word "absent" means? Will it mean, "I cannot be at my place of voting because of work in central London" or does it mean that one has to be abroad or away completely?
Baroness Hayman: The absent voting regulations are much more generous now than they were when I was fighting elections and perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Archer, was doing so as well. Anyone whose circumstances, including their work situation, are such that they cannot reasonably be expected to get to their polling station during polling hours is entitled to an absent vote under Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act 1985. It is certainly not a matter, which was my preconception, that one had to certify that one would be abroad or anything like that. The regulations are much more widely drawn now.
It is quite simple to apply to the electoral registration officer to do so. As I have said, we shall be taking steps to ensure that how to do so is much more widely known. I believe that the problem is much more with people not understanding the availability of proxy votes than it is with opening hours. Absent votes can either be in person, by post or at the polling station by proxy—that is if one can get someone else to go to the polling station on one's behalf.
We are committed to spreading the message that everyone who wishes to vote will be able to do so. The Committee may be interested to know that we are already talking to several major employers to explore how we can reach specific groups of workers who may have difficulty in getting to a polling station and encourage them to register for an absent vote. We want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in both the referendum and the local elections. I hope that there will be a spin-off in terms of increased turnout for the local elections.
996
I have set out our plans for maximising voter participation. I do not believe extending the hours for the referendum poll to run from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. would add significantly to that effort.
Extending the referendum vote would cost more, delay the count and, we believe, provide very little advantage in terms of increased turnout, certainly compared to what a wholehearted campaign about publicising absent votes could achieve. A combined poll in which people could cast one vote but not another at certain times would be near impossible to administer. Extending polling hours for local elections would create severe administrative problems for boroughs. Local authorities prepare well in advance for their own polls and would not thank us for additional complications, especially when they have the extra burden this year of preparing for a combined poll. It is not simply a matter of Whitehall civil servants. It is a question of taking into account those who actually have to administer such elections.
I hope that I have been able to allay any concerns about the way in which we intend to proceed. I stress once again that anyone who is unable to vote because of work or other commitments will be entitled to an absent vote. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not know whether the Minister can help the Committee with regard to what would be required to extend the voting hours for council elections on the same day. I raised that matter earlier because I accept the point about difficulty and confusion arising if the voting hours were different.
The Minister says that the Government do not believe that there would be any significant advantage to be gained by extending the hours. My observations are personal and, I suppose, anecdotal. However, over many years I have been aware that in my area where turnout at local elections is generally over 60 per cent.—it is not an area in which people do not take any notice of what goes on—many people find themselves unable to vote despite an awful lot of literature coming through the door and very many reminders from people knocking on doors about the absent vote facility, of which the Minister reminded the Committee.
I have seen people in substantial numbers in polling stations early in the morning and late at night during general elections. The Minister sounds confident, but I shall be interested to know whether the Government have any hard evidence about the hours of the day at which people tend to vote.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether the Minister will reflect further on this matter before we return to the Bill on Report. If she does so, that would probably enable her to answer the specific question put by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about whether it would be possible to make arrangements to extend the hours of local government elections before the poll for the referendum. That is an important consideration.
During the Minister's speech I noted one phrase which is an old friend from the past. The noble Baroness referred to "well tried and tested arrangements." Some

997
of the most unconvincing speeches I made when I was a Home Office Minister contained those dread words prepared by officials. If it is argued that relatively few additional people would vote if the hours were extended by two hours in the way suggested, it raises the question of whether we could save a great deal of money by limiting the hours of voting during parliamentary elections. I should be surprised if the present Government took that view; we would certainly be firmly opposed to it. I am not asking the Minister to commit herself to anything, but it would be helpful if she could at least reflect on the matter between now and Report.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I wish to be helpful to the Committee but I am also anxious not to deceive noble Lords in terms of a commitment to move on this issue. The Government are extremely concerned about the difficulties that would be caused by extending the hours for this poll. It would be expensive, administratively disruptive and would delay the results of the local elections. It is not impossible to do it; it could be done by secondary legislation.
In the sense that I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the answer to her question about the number of people who vote at particular times, I am willing to take that point away and return to it on Report. We all live by anecdote and I suspect that some people will always just miss the poll whatever the time at which it opens and closes. Therefore, there is an inherent difficulty in that proposition. However, if it would help the Committee if I were to bring back whatever evidence we have about voting patterns and flows, I certainly undertake to do so on Report. I cannot say with any confidence, however, the Government having taken a firm view in another place, that they will do anything other than that on Report.
Lord Elton: The Minister said that draft secondary legislation was available in the Library. I have had a quick look at it. The draft proposes that the hours of polling shall be between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on the day in question. However, that is a draft. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to tell us on Report what arrangements might be made to enable us to discuss that draft effectively. By convention, this House cannot amend subordinate legislation. Therefore, some sort of debate would be required before the subordinate legislation could be formally tabled. It may take a little time to work out how to get round that, but it will be worthwhile if the Minister could do so between now and Report stage.
Baroness Hayman: That is another reason for saying that I shall consider something rather than give an immediate response to it. I cannot give the noble Lord an off-the-cuff response, but I shall certainly look into the issue.
Lord Bowness: I am grateful to the Minister for her response to this amendment and the debate. I am sorry
998
that the decision has at this stage been made to standardise on the local government hours of voting rather than on the parliamentary hours of voting. I understand the argument about expense. Whether or not that expense is worthwhile is another argument. I am not sure that I understand the point about administrative problems, given that the hours 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. are used for parliamentary elections. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exclusion of legal proceedings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Bowness: I hope that I shall not take up too much of the time of the Committee, but the wording of Clause 6 is specific. It states:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast".
That is very specific indeed.
The Minister in another place, on 24th November at col. 715, said that it would be for the courts to reach a view on whether they should entertain such an application. He said:
"They would reach judgment as to whether in practice clause 6 should apply, or whether it should not because it would be wrong for it to oust their jurisdiction".
The Minister later said:
"When first considering the clause, I expressed some concerns on that ground, but I am satisfied that this is a proper provision, which is designed to prevent frivolous challenges, while not preventing a genuine challenge".
Lastly, in the same column he said:
"I hope that I have satisfied the Committee that the clause is a safeguard to prevent frivolous litigation. It does not cut across fundamental rights".—[Official Report, Commons; 24/11/97: col. 715.)
I hope that in replying to this debate the Minister can tell us why the clause does not mean what it actually says. It is very specific. The Minister is aware that there have been concerns expressed about some elements of the Welsh referendum. I believe it is inappropriate that we should seek to pass legislation which on its face ousts the jurisdiction of the courts. I am aware that there was a similar provision in the Welsh and Scottish Bills. While that may be claimed as a precedent, it does not mean necessarily that that is a good thing. Without wishing to detain the Committee any longer, perhaps the Minister can concentrate on the assurances given by her colleague in another place. Can she explain to the Committee why this does not mean what it says?
Baroness Hayman: Clause 6 is a valuable protection to ensure that the Government can respond swiftly to the referendum results. I and other Ministers share the difficulty experienced by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.

999
The clause does not prohibit legal challenge where there has been some form of misconduct about a referendum count. The purpose of the clause is the same as that behind the equivalent clauses in the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland and Wales Acts of 1978 and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. There is therefore precedent for this measure in previous legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord will say that that is another phrase that I should not be using at the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said that issues had been raised about the conduct of the referendum in Wales. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has today answered comprehensively a Parliamentary Question in another place on that topic.
I return to the intent of this particular clause. This clause is designed to prevent a frivolous challenge to the counting of votes or ballot papers. The Government recognise that the provisions in the Bill do not amount to an absolute bar on legal proceedings as the courts may construe Clause 6 as not ousting their jurisdiction in appropriate cases, such as one involving a flagrant breach of the law by a counting officer in the conduct of the referendum. I can assure the Committee that there is no question of the courts being unable to consider appropriate cases. We recognise that the courts are rightly jealous of their jurisdiction and look carefully at clauses that seek to oust their powers. There is therefore a substantial body of case law concerning the proper interpretation of such statutory provisions. Should any legal proceedings be brought challenging the actions of the chief counting officer or a counting officer it would be for the court in accordance with case law and the particular circumstances of the case to decide whether a challenge should be entertained in the light of Clause 6. For example, if it could be shown that a counting officer had failed to carry out his statutory duties or had acted in any way deemed to be ultra vires the courts might intervene despite the terms of this clause.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord and that he will feel able to support the clause.
Lord Bowness: I am grateful to the Minister. I always experience difficulty in pursuing legal matters in this House. Perhaps I should not take this point any further. The Minister has informed the Committee that the precedent lies in the Welsh and Scottish Bills. Of course, a clause of this kind has not been tested subsequent to the passing of those Bills. The words "any proceedings" give me great cause for concern. However, I shall read what the Minister has said.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Functions of the Local Government Commission]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("If the Secretary of State so directs,").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 34. At first glance the Bill appears to leave to the Local Government Commission a considerable amount of flexibility and discretion with regard to a number of
1000
important matters. However, at second glance the Local Government Commission can submit a report only if it is so directed by the Secretary of State. The first amendment in this group seeks to take out the opening words of this clause so that the commission is required by statute to report and is not dependent upon the direction of the Secretary of State. Further, the direction that the Government propose should be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) which I seek to remove is one that covers the total number of electoral areas and the total number of members.
These are important matters. The number of electoral areas and the number of members are inter-dependent and inextricably part of decisions about the electoral systems. For the purposes of this debate I take it as read that there will be two elections, one for the mayor and one for the members of the assembly. In a later grouping of amendments we shall debate the importance of systems that allow for proportionality and voter choice. In this group of amendments I seek to ensure that the hands of the Local Government Commission are not fettered by an imposed direction that will enable it to undertake only a technical exercise as to how to implement the Government's preferred system. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: These amendments remove the power to issue a direction to the Local Government Commission specifying matters such as the total number of electoral areas and members for which the recommendations in the commission's report must provide. When we debate the next group of amendments perhaps we shall see more clearly precisely why they have been proposed. We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. The White Paper will make our proposals on electoral arrangements quite explicit. The Local Government Commission will have to operate within a clear policy framework when it draws up its recommendations on the boundaries and the number of members of electoral areas in Greater London. The directions provided for in the Bill will reflect the policy proposals set out in the White Paper. These will include matters such as the number of electoral areas and the members of the assembly. The White Paper will be crucial in helping Londoners to decide how to vote in the referendum. I do not believe that it would be helpful to suggest that there should be no mechanism by which the commission should be instructed to take account of the White Paper and to leave out critical details upon which Londoners had voted. That does not sit very comfortably with giving Londoners a real choice.
The commission and Secretary of State will be operating in the context of a clear policy framework set out in the White Paper. Government policy with respect to electoral systems, the number of electoral areas and the number of assembly members will have been made explicit. The discretion of the Secretary of State will therefore be far more limited than some people have believed. The approach here is well precedented. The provisions contained in Part II of the Bill are based on those in Part II of the Local Government Act 1992 which provide for the structural review of English local government and for periodic electoral reviews of counties and districts.

1001
I emphasise that there is clear precedent for the provisions in Part II of the Bill. Clause 7(2) is necessary in recognition of the fact that the commission is concerned with first elections rather than reviewing existing arrangements and enables the Secretary of State to set the detailed policy framework that will have been outlined in the White Paper.
We therefore believe that our proposals in Part II follow another well-precedented approach. I stress again that clear detail will have been laid out in the White Paper. It is only right in that context that a mechanism should exist for directing the commission to take that into account when drafting its report. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: It is probably better to have the debate on the later group of amendments at this stage, because we seem to have consequential amendments which precede substantive amendments. I feel almost as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I shall await that debate, and read the Minister's answer on this group of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: This set of amendments provides for an open, consultative method of arriving at the best electoral arrangements for a democratic and representative London assembly. If Clauses 7 to 11 stand as drafted there will be little scope for the LGC to be creative and consultative, because the directions as to electoral areas are constraining. The number of members and even the names of the constituencies will be subject to directions. That does not leave a great deal for the LGC to consult upon and involve other parties in arriving at its recommendations.
Perhaps I can contrast that, first, with the Jenkins Committee on electoral reform, which has already been mentioned today, which was given a set of criteria against which to work but which was otherwise free to think the thinkable. The second contrast is with the experience of Scotland, where the Scottish Constitutional Convention worked in a consensual way, bringing together not merely parties but trade unions, churches and voluntary organisations. Part of the reason for the massive Yes vote in Scotland was that the groundwork had been through that consensual, consultative method. We want no less for London.
The Secretary of State's ability to give guidance to the LGC, meets part of the test that the Minister mentioned in her previous remarks. It is true that guidance is better than directions. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to require the commission to have regard to it. I think the Minister used the phrase "have regard to", or "take account of'.
The reserve power remains under Clause 9, that once the report is submitted to the Secretary of State, in accordance with Clause 7, the Secretary of State may then direct the commission to submit a further report. In the first instance, we propose that the LGC should be given a framework within which it can come up with a system which is likely to receive the maximum support and, again, meet the test of long-term stability and consent.
The amendments provide that the matters upon which the Secretary of State may give guidance could include—it is obviously not an exhaustive list—the timetable for the report, and criteria such as fairness, proportionality and voter choice.
We on these Benches start with the motive that we want an effective assembly with popular support, not one crippled from the start by a bad voting system. We contend that a bad voting system would be first-past-the-post. We see the dangers created by a one-party state with disaffected voters who are alienated and so often do not turn out to vote. That has produced examples such as Hackney, Glasgow and Doncaster and, to some extent, the GLC. The first-past-the-post system is tried and tested, but it may be the residents who have been tried and tested by the experience of living under first-past-the-post regimes. We believe that there should be a proportional system which reflects London's diversity and ensures a fair, geographic spread of representation.
Voter choice is an important criterion to which the LGC should have regard. That principle is essential in order to reflect the diversity of London's population, and to achieve gender balance. Ethnic minority representation is important in London. It will come as no surprise to the Committee to hear that the preference of the Liberal Democrats is the STV which gives the optimum combination of voter empowerment to express preferences and proportionality between parties. We favour the pure form of STV as used in Ireland, North and South. The Committee need not fear that I shall launch into a discussion of all the possible permutations of STV or any other system, because I am not qualified to do so. Obviously the test of a Liberal Democrat is that one can run an STV election, and unfortunately I cannot.
I want the LGC to go into all the possible permutations. One of the things it might look at is the 50-page report produced by the Electoral Reform Society in response to the Government's Green Paper. That is meaty material. We on these Benches will undoubtedly have to compromise on what will emerge as the eventual system, as will others, to achieve our goal of a consensual system suitable for London.
It is also our view that a genuine constituency basis is needed. The commission would need to look at the best configuration of constituencies. If it were already subject to a direction from the Secretary of State to specify the electoral areas, the number of members and the names of the constituencies, it would be so hide-bound that it would be unable to come up with the best solution. A London-wide single list would, even if proportional, fail to reflect the diversity of Londoners and fail to make Londoners feel that that body belonged to them by reflecting geographical differences.
The commission must also consider the size of an assembly. We believe that it must be large enough to achieve proportionality and to allow all Londoners to feel represented. There is a danger that that will not be achieved if the assembly is too small. However, if it is too large we shall have the problems experienced by the GLC. We also want it to be large enough to provide enough person power to carry out the work of scrutinising the mayor. The Government put emphasis on that. We believe that a membership of 40 or 50 best meets that criterion. However, we are arguing for the Local Government Commission to bring together a forum of interested parties—political parties, voluntary organisations and pressure groups such as the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88 and others—and to publicise and invite comments on its recommendations before it reports.
There is considerable common ground between the comments of the Electoral Reform Society and the response of the Liberal Democrats to the Government's White Paper. We see considerable merit in the idea of constituencies which pay regard to the historic counties in London. There would be, say, five large multi-member constituencies whose boundaries reflected historic routes and geographic attachments. That has a great deal of resonance in London; for instance, the postal address of Kingston is Surrey, although it is a London borough. Furthermore, Middlesex carries weight for people in cricket clubs, for instance.
We wish to put those ideas into the melting pot because we believe that there is considerable mileage in them. However, we believe that first-past-the-post single member constituencies which group boroughs together should be firmly ruled out. There are many pitfalls in that approach, but I must not take up too much time in spelling them out. The advantage of having large multi-member constituencies is that they need not be the same size. There would be no need for continuous boundary reviews because one could alter the number of members representing each constituency. Sufficient members would be elected in each constituency to achieve the desirable proportionality and genuine ethnic representation.
The purpose of the amendment is not to set out the electoral system but to suggest that the Government should give guidance—not directions—to the Local Government Commission to go out and consult and to consider what would be the best tailor-made system for London that has the best chance of receiving maximum support. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Chamber appears to have emptied, but I suspect that that has more to do with the state of Members' stomachs than their interest in this part of the Bill. I hope that that is the case. In speaking to the amendment, I speak also to the amendments grouped with it.
In tabling the amendments I was hoping to tempt the Minister into giving assurances as to the criteria which the Government are considering with regard to the
1004
electoral systems in respect of members of the assembly and the mayor. If at this stage we can obtain suitable assurances we might be satisfied; if not, we might seek other devices to raise the subject.
My party is identified with concern—in the case of some people, with passionate concern—with voting systems. Like my noble friend, I do not aspire to that, but I am glad that others can get their computers working on STV elections. I asked those in my party who had been examining the issue how the electoral outcomes might be affected by different types of systems. I was told, "We do not know. There are too many variables, unless you want us to go away and come up with a very long report about the numbers in each constituency used in different types of systems". I did not ask for that work to be done. Therefore, in supporting the amendments, I have no idea whether there would be any electoral benefit to one party or another.
I hope not. I hope that in examining the issues we can concentrate on what the voters wish to see. I support proportional systems because I believe that they enable as many people as possible to feel that they have voted to be represented by somebody who is elected. Even if that vote has not come as number one, coming high on the list gives you some sense of ownership and a feeling of pride, which is desirable. Furthermore, a fully proportional system allows one to put at the bottom of the list one's least favourite candidate. There is a good deal to be said for allowing the voters to express views against candidates as well as for them.

My noble friend referred to the issue of size. Size is related to the workload of the new authority. The make-up of the constituencies must also reflect the strategic nature of the authority. Unlike noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, we wish to get away from a narrow borough outlook.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Where are those on the Conservative Benches?
Baroness Hayman: It is the Conservative Bench! The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, tempted us to debate the merits of various electoral systems. Perhaps she will understand if at this stage of the Committee's deliberations I resist that temptation and confine myself to the import of the amendments that are before us. They offer a completely different perception of how the Local Government Commission would proceed in its report on electoral arrangements for the authority. The Government cannot accept the case made out in the amendments.
The White Paper will set out a clear policy framework for electoral arrangements for the new authority. Rightly, the Local Government Commission will be asked to provide expert and independent advice on the technical framework that would be necessary to put that policy into practice should it be approved by Parliament in a main Bill. We believe that the commission should not be asked to make recommendations on what are essentially policy questions. The White Paper will set

1005
out in precise terms the policy framework to be followed on electoral matters. That will then form the package of proposals on which the people of London will vote.
The Bill as it stands confers new functions on the Local Government Commission, requiring it, at the direction of the Secretary of State, to prepare a report recommending the electoral areas into which Greater London should be divided for the purpose of electing members to any assembly established following the referendum, the number of members which should be elected for each elected area and the name by which each area should be known. The Bill requires that any direction made by the Secretary of State must specify the total number of elected areas into which Greater London should be divided for elections to the new assembly and the total number of members for which the commission's recommendations should provide.
The amendments to Clause 7 would give the commission a much broader role—that was acknowledged in the arguments put forward—with a free rein to make recommendations after consultation with many other interested bodies on electoral systems including the election, the system for the election of the mayor, electoral areas and the number of members to be elected.
The Government cannot accept these amendments. They devolve important questions of policy to the commission, asking it to consider issues which are far beyond its remit. The commission is an independent body which advises on boundary issues. There is no case for asking the Local Government Commission—this is quite unlike issues relating to future electoral systems—to make recommendations about how the mayor or the members of the assembly should be elected.
The Government have stated their intention to publish a White Paper which will set out detailed proposals relating to electoral systems. The tenor of the earlier debate was that there should be clarity and that the people of London would understand what they were voting for in the referendum. It would be rather at odds to have what in effect would be a half-baked White Paper because it would be impossible to write a clear and comprehensive White Paper if the commission were given the task of making recommendations on all aspects of electoral arrangements. It could not pre-empt the commission's deliberations. In that case the people of London would be forced to vote in a referendum without having a clear idea about how the mayor and assembly are to be elected. That cannot be good for clarity or democratic choice.
The procedures set out in Clauses 7 to 10 governing the role of the Local Government Commission are well precedented. They take as their model Part II of the Local Government Act 1992 which makes provision for the structural review of English local government and for periodic electoral reviews of counties and districts.
The Government are now spending considerable time and effort analysing consultation responses to our Green Paper New Leadership for London. That asks seven separate questions about electoral systems. Quite properly, we shall set out in the White Paper our proposals after looking at the results of that consultation as to how
1006
the mayor and assembly should be elected. That will be one piece of the jigsaw which adds up to people's decisions about how they vote in the referendum.
If there is an affirmative vote in the referendum, the commission will be asked to provide technical advice as regards electoral areas. The Secretary of State will issue a direction to the commission based on the policy set out in the White Paper which will give the commission a clear framework within which to operate. We believe that there cannot be a justification for extending the commission's role into questions of policy. It would greatly muddy the waters for voters in the referendum and would take away from government responsibility for policy and for that policy to be based on the results of the consultation. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford: The Minister feared that the Government would lose the ability to implement their policies. But I ask her to comment on the fact that reserve powers remain in Clause 9. Where a report is submitted to the Secretary of State, he may then, if he thinks fit, direct the commission to produce a supplementary report. Will the Minister explain why that is not considered a sufficient guarantee that the Government will be able to implement, if necessary, their key policies? I ask the Government to reflect further on whether the form of the drafting is too specific and whether they will consider introducing some flexibility into the arrangements.
Baroness Hayman: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may answer the specific point she raised. If the amendment were accepted, it is right that the Secretary of State would still be able to direct the commission to review the recommendations in respect of electoral areas, numbers of members for each area, and the name by which each area should be known. But he would not be able to ask the commission to review the other recommendations. We do not believe that it would be satisfactory if the commission were to recommend an electoral system completely at odds with the Government's position. That takes us back to the nub of the reason for the Government's opposition to the amendments; namely, that we believe that they put policy decisions before a body which is properly there to advise on technicalities but not to set a policy framework.
Baroness Ludford: Perhaps the Minister will reflect further in relation to flexibility in the directions which they give. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before I call Amendment No. 23, I must inform the Committee that on Division No. 3, the correct figure for the Not-Contents was 140 and not 141 as stated previously.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("such electoral area") and insert ("London Borough").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 and 28. Many of the arguments that I deployed in support of an assembly of borough leaders could be deployed in support of this amendment. But Members of the Committee will no doubt be gratified to know that I do not propose to deploy them at length. However, with as much force as I can muster, I suggest that an assembly should consist of representatives of areas or of London boroughs themselves. To suggest that the electoral areas should be other than a part of a London borough, or a London borough, seems to show what I can only describe as an astonishing lack of understanding of the nature of Greater London.
It goes back to the idea that London is somehow, as I described earlier, an homogenous unit where everybody believes the same, has the same interests and there is no identity of the constituent parts. I have spoken of the history and development of the towns and cities which make up the capital. It seems to me that by suggesting that the division should be other than borough based—an assembly of representatives which sought to blur those identities—denying the representatives a representative role as well as a responsibility for the area of the capital as a whole, would be a recipe for considerable conflict, lack of accountability and ultimate disenchantment and frustration on the part of the people in the individual towns and cities within the capital area. In short, I believe that it would be an unmitigated disaster.
Of course, those towns and cities have the common problems and interests of which I spoke earlier. But they also have their own identity and community. Let us not forget that the Local Government Commission has been involved in not inconsiderable controversy in other parts of the country in creating authorities where the population considered it had no affinity, one part with the other. To replace the boroughs of London with some artificially created electoral unit would be madness.
We know that in the past there has been great difficulty in creating constituencies for the European Parliament which have anything like the community of interest for which we search when creating parliamentary constituencies and, indeed, even local government wards. The London boroughs are communities. Some, like Kingston, are of enormous antiquity and of long and historic standing. Others are of more recent creation; nevertheless, they are communities which have been built by hard work and common interest.
If members of the assembly do not have an allegiance to their borough as well as to Greater London as a whole, the assembly will not be in touch with the citizens. There is nothing unusual about having a dual responsibility and interest. Local councillors have a borough or county-wide responsibility and a responsibility and interest for their own particular wards. It is never suggested that those ward interests may prevent them from taking a borough-wide view, although in particular instances they may fight that ward interest. The same is true of Members of Parliament and their constituency interests and their interests for the
1008
country. Members of the European Parliament have perhaps an even greater range of interests in terms of constituency in the UK and European interests.
We would be making the most enormous mistake if we divided Greater London into what I have described as artificially created electoral units. It is for that reason that I ask Members of the Committee and the Minister to consider and accept the fact that there is no real practical alternative but to base the electoral areas on the boroughs or parts thereof. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: We have already addressed some of the issues raised by the amendment. Although the noble Lord spoke very passionately about local links, I shall simply say that the strategic task for the proposed body is one where I believe close local links are not as important as they are for other political jobs. Indeed, there are others to undertake the more local jobs—others elected both to another place and to borough councils, though sadly not, in London, to parishes.
The noble Lord said that London is not homogeneous. Neither, I suspect, are many of the boroughs as they are now constituted. I know that many comments have been made about how things were better when there were smaller boroughs, so I do not follow the noble Lord on that argument. The noble Lord did not raise the thorny question that is inherent in the proposal; namely, the different sizes of populations and electorates in the different London boroughs. The noble Lord mentioned Kingston, which has a relatively small electorate of, say, 140,000. I believe that the population of the noble Lord's own borough of Croydon is of the order of 300,000 or 330,000, but I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong. Nevertheless, even if I have not worked out the figures accurately, the population sizes are very disparate. Indeed, the proposal could, frankly, be quite unfair. The noble Lord may say that there are different numbers for each borough, but that would mean that we would have a very much bigger assembly than anyone is contemplating at present.
On these Benches we recognise that a degree of geographical link is important; indeed, it should not be entirely ignored. That is why my noble friend mentioned the possibility of constituencies which are linked to the old counties. I have come to realise that people's memories and sentiments as regards history run much deeper than one might suspect.
Baroness Hayman: It became apparent in the noble Baroness's closing remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was perhaps a little too certain when he said that there were absolutely no practical alternatives to borough-based constituencies. It is an issue about which I understand the noble Lord feels passionately and one to which there was a great deal of response in the Green Paper consultation process. The Government made their position quite clear on the question of electoral arrangements for the new authority. In a way the new amendment is the opposite of amendments which we have just discussed. The latter aimed to give more flexibility to the Local Government Commission to

1009
bring forward a wider range of proposals than that directed by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord's amendment would limit the possibilities and reduce flexibility.
In the Green Paper we stated that a range of different electoral arrangements might be appropriate for the new authority. As I said, during the consultation process we received a large number of responses on electoral issues which we are considering carefully. Final proposals for the new authority, including the issues dealt with by the noble Lord, will be clearly set out in the White Paper to be published in March. It is on these proposals that the people of London will have the opportunity to vote.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London emphasised in another place, there is no advantage in fettering consideration of consultation responses by legislating in this Bill in the way proposed. It will be for the people of London to make a judgment on proposed electoral systems in the referendum in May, as part of the package presented to them.
Indeed, these amendments could justifiably be seen by the public as an attempt to frustrate progress towards a new Greater London authority. If the amendments were passed, but the package of proposals approved in the referendum did not include borough-based electoral areas for the assembly, the paving provisions in Part II of the Bill would be useless. That would threaten early elections to the new London assembly, perhaps by up to a year.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that the proposals in the White Paper may well reflect the arguments that he has put forward. Following consideration of responses to the Green Paper, it is possible that it will be clear to everyone that the Government accept that borough-based constituencies for the assembly are the best way forward. However, we have stated quite clearly—and these are the issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred—that we do not believe there is a case for duplicating the local representational roles of borough councillors, MPs or Euro-MPs. As well as reflecting local interests and concerns, it is important that members of the assembly take a strategic view. As the noble Baroness said, the boundaries of boroughs are not set in stone forever. Certainly my own borough of Camden comprises three very different areas which are not homogeneous and which in fact, in other times, were subject to different local government boundaries and were part of different boroughs.
Basically, the reason why the Government urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments is simply that we are still considering the consultation responses. It would wrong to pre-judge that process, and that is precisely what we would be doing if we were to agree to the amendments.
Lord Bowness: I thank the Minister for her response. I feel quite cold when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, saying that the new Greater London authority is for strategic matters and strategic tasks and that they
1010
are not matters for the boroughs. That is undoubtedly going down the road which led to so much trouble under the previous arrangements.
As I said earlier, the problems of Greater London are those of some or all of the boroughs which make up the Greater London area. It is just not good enough to say that some of those problems are too great for them to consider and that such matters should be dealt with by another lofty authority which can take a better view. It is the pedestrian crossing/allotment syndrome to which I referred on Second Reading; in other words, the boroughs are all right for doing minor things but we should not let them get involved in anything strategic.
We are talking about the proposed assembly. We are not talking about the assembly of borough leaders; we are talking about a directly elected assembly. Those strategic issues will impact upon the individual towns and cities. Therefore, it is vital that the representatives who sit in that assembly should have a direct linkage with those towns and cities. It is of course for the Boundary Commission to decide the number of representatives for each particular borough. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the size of individual boroughs, and it is possible that there will he a grouping of boroughs. However, the amendment seeks to ensure—and this is absolutely critical—that the assembly is still rooted in the boroughs of Greater London. They are representative of the people. No Greater London authority can claim to have just a London view regardless of what the people in the boroughs think. That representational role is desperately needed. If this amendment is rejected we stand to lose that vital element. I am not persuaded to withdraw the amendment. I seek the opinion of the Committee.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Banbury of Southam, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Belstead, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Berners, B.

Downshire, M.

Bethell, L.

Elton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Blaker, L.

Fookes, B.

Blatch, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bowness, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Byford, B.

Higgins, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Holderness, L.

Carnock, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Home, E.

Chesham, L.

Howe, E.

Coleridge, L.

Inchcape, E.

Colwyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jopling, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Keyes, L.

990

Kimball, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kingsland, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Seccombe, B.

Luke, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Marlesford, L.

Sharples, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Stockton, E.

Mottistone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Palmer, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wilcox, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howell, L.

Alport, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Berkeley, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Blackstone, B.

lslwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Burlison, L.

Judd, L.

Calverley, L.

Kennedy of the Shaws, B.

Carlisle, E.

Kennet, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kintore, E.

Castle of Blackburn, b.

Kilmarnock, L.

Chandos, V.

Kintore, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Levy, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

David, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ludford, B.

Dixon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Eatwell, L.

McNally, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Maddock, B.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkland, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Meston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gilbert, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Molloy, L.

Goodhart, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Monson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gregson, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Grenfell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Grey, E.

Newby, L.

Hampton, L.

Nicol, B.

Hamwee, B.

Orme, L.

Hankey, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hardie, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Haskel, L.

Razzall, L.

Hattersley, L.

Rea, L.

Hayman, B.

Redesdale, L.

Healey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

991

Rusell, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Sewel, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Shepherd, L.

Tope, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Simon, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Varley, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitty, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Young of Old scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Belstead, L.

Kingsland, L.

Bemers, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blaker, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Blatch, B.

Newall, L.

Bowness, L.

Prior, L.

Burnharn, L. [Teller.]

Seccombe, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Sharples, B.

Fookes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harlech, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Inchcape, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jopling, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Alderdice, L.

Blackstone, B.

Amos, B.

Blease, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Borrie, L.

1011

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Levy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ludford, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

[Teller.]

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Davies of Oldharn, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Donoughue, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dubs, L.

Meston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Morries of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gregson, L.

Razzall, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grey, E.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hampton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hardie, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Haskel, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackburn, L

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Islwyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Watson of Invergowrie

Judd, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Whitty, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Laster of Herne Hill, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.18 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Preparation and submission of report]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Supplementary report]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to. Clause 10 [Directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Clause 10 and remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment

Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Hearings etc. by chairman alone]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("14A)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to discuss Amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 21 and 24. It will certainly be in the interests of expedition.
With this group of amendments we return to a discussion which has occupied your Lordships on a number of earlier occasions. The principle of relieving senior judicial officers of part of their burden by delegating that work to less senior officials probably with less experience and fewer qualifications was not invented for the purpose of this Bill. At least since the 14th century the Lord Chancellor was assisted by magistri cancellarii—the earliest chancery masters. Many of us in your Lordships' House have passed happy hours in the Bear Garden arguing before Masters of the Supreme Court matters with which it was not deemed necessary to trouble a High Court judge. And if cases are to be heard more quickly, it would be sensible to relieve chairmen of part of their burden if that can be done consistently with proper standards.
If your Lordships accept that reasoning, there remain two questions. First, what powers may properly be given to these officials whom we are calling legal officers? Secondly, how far should we seek to define those powers rigidly in primary legislation? On the first question I suspect that we are largely in agreement. But this is an experiment. I do not claim that every provision in the Bill is right for all eternity. I am wary of seeking to set it all in stone in every detail.
For myself I welcome the Government's intention as stated in our earlier debates by my noble friend Lord Haskel to conduct a pilot scheme, and a pilot scheme would be pointless unless we left some flexibility to take advantage of what was learned from that scheme.
That brings us to the second but related question: how far then should we define the duties and powers of legal officers in primary legislation? It is always a question of balance how far Parliament should delegate to Ministers a wide discretion. If the delegated powers are too wide, they may be abused by some future administration, or used in a way which Parliament would not have intended. If they are too narrow, there may one day transpire to be a situation for which we failed to make provision. As a colleague is reputed to have said in another place, "Prediction is always difficult especially when it relates to the future".
Legislation which leaves no flexibility is likely to produce a situation where everyone agrees what should be done but no one has power to do it. In our earlier debates, the noble Lords, Lord Lester, and Lord Renton—I see that at present the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place—were critical of the wide powers delegated to the Executive under Clause 5 as

1013
originally drafted. I agree that there is force in that observation. Indeed, I tried to go some way towards recognising it by moving an amendment on Report.
If I may interrupt myself, perhaps I may correct one slip in the record of that debate which arose no doubt because I was muttering inaudibly at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, commented that the Scrutiny Committee had failed to comment on the breadth of those powers. When I replied, I am accused in the Official Report of saying,
"I accept what the noble Lord said: that the Scrutiny Committee overlooked this point. As a member of that committee I must share some of the blame, and I do so".—[Official Report, 20/4/97; col. 702.1
What I actually said, as I am sure the noble Lord will recollect, was,
"If the Scrutiny Committee overlooked this point I must share some of the blame".
I have subsequently checked, not least because my attitude to possible amendments to the Bill would be strongly influenced by the views of the committee. In its fourth report, the committee noted that certain clauses including Clause 5 made amendments to the Act of 1996 which modified the existing regulation-making power, but without affecting parliamentary control. It commented that some of the changes are important, but that none appeared to raise questions which the committee thought necessary to draw to the attention of the House. The noble Lord is entitled to disagree with that judgment, but it was not by oversight.
So where should the balance lie? The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has tabled an amendment which substantially repeats the amendment tabled on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and concerns legislating to empower legal officers to make interlocutory orders. I recall that, unhappily, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had to leave before the conclusion of that debate for unavoidable reasons, but if he has read the report of that subsequent debate he will have seen that there are some duties which, as I understand it, no one would wish to preclude legal officers from undertaking and which are almost certainly not included in the term "interlocutory"—for example, making an order dismissing proceedings where the application has been withdrawn.
I understand that it is with a view to meeting that difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tabled his amendment. The noble Lord seeks to deal with the matter by writing into the primary legislation a list of all the powers and functions which the regulations may confer on legal officers. I hope he will forgive me if I make two comments on that.
First, if we specify in detail in primary legislation what the regulations are to say, there is no point in giving power to make regulations. The whole purpose of delegated legislation is that it should confer a degree of flexibility which could not be achieved by writing the entire context into the primary legislation.
I appreciate, of course, that the noble Lord's amendment does not seek to compel the Secretary of State to include in the regulations all the powers listed
1014
in his amendment. His amendment seeks to write into the Bill a list of powers and permit the Secretary of State to leave some of them out. But that would be the full extent of the Secretary of State's discretion under the noble Lord's amendment. I believe that that solution would lack the very flexibility which a regulation-making power is intended to create.
But there is a further difficulty about the noble Lord's solution. The procedures of the tribunal, the kind of orders which may be made either by or for a tribunal, are set out in regulations. The functions listed in the noble Lord's amendment are conferred on tribunals by regulations.
It is rarely if ever good practice to refer in primary legislation to matters for which provision is made in secondary legislation, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would agree. The reason for that is that the secondary legislation may from time to time be amended, so the primary legislation may be left making reference to a process which no longer exists or which is no longer in the same form. If the secondary legislation is amended to provide for a new process, the primary legislation will make no reference to it.
Perhaps I may offer an example. Only recently, the regulations were amended to confer on tribunals a power in effect to order interrogatories. I make no judgment as to whether legal officers ought or ought not to have power to order interrogatories. But if this Bill had already been on the statute book when those regulations were amended, and had it been in the form proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, no one would have had power even to consider whether that function should be conferred on legal officers in the absence of new primary legislation to amend this Act. I do not believe that that is a situation which the noble Lord would wish to bring about.
My Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 are designed to meet the anxieties expressed on Report by specifying on the face of the legislation what a legal officer may not be empowered to do. He would not be empowered to carry out a pre-hearing review, nor any of the new procedures under Clause 2 of the Bill. He would have no power to determine proceedings except where an application has been withdrawn or the parties have reached a settlement.
And of course he would not have to be empowered to determine all proceedings even in those circumstances. He could be empowered to determine proceedings where the parties have reached a settlement in some circumstances but not in others. As my noble friend Lord Haskel has said more than once, the regulations would not be made without full consideration and consultation with those concerned.
I am indebted to the Employment Lawyers Association for advice on this Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has very good and close relations with that association. In our earlier debates he quoted from letters. I hope he will forgive me if I read from a letter which I have received from the association.' It states:
"We have carefully considered whether it is preferable to identify in the Bill the powers which Legal Officers may not exercise, or to list those powers which they may exercise. We can see arguments for both approaches. However, we consider that the latter approach

1015
(i.e. to list the powers which they may exercise) carries with it two dangers … First, it risks omitting from the list powers which currently exist and which it may be thought appropriate to be exercised by Legal Officers … Secondly, if further interlocutory powers were given to Tribunals by amendment of the Tribunal Rules, it would then become necessary to amend the Act to enable Legal Officers to exercise such powers. For example, in recent years, the Rules were amended to permit orders requiring parties to answer questions—"
the example to which I just referred.
"This is the type of order which. in an appropriate case, could be made by a Legal Officer. If such a new power was granted in future. it would he unfortunate if an amendment to the Act were necessary. failing which the Legal Officer could not exercise such a power".
With the assistance of the Government, I have tried to meet the concerns of the noble Lords. I hope that they will feel able to accept the proposal embodied in my amendments.
Perhaps I may add that the other amendments in this group which I hope to move are consequential on those proposals, or an attempt to tidy up drafting anomalies which came to light during our deliberations. If your Lordships wish for a fuller explanation, I will of course be happy to provide it; but I suspect that it may not increase my popularity rating. Amendment No. 1 is one of the consequential amendments. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wish to speak to these amendments, together with Amendment No. 6 standing in my name and Amendment No. 7 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? If Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I follow that point. That is exactly why I am speaking to this group of amendments at this stage.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for his very full explanation of the position. Essentially, there has been significant progress in clarifying the scope of the powers that are capable of being delegated to legal officers. The House has a choice of three different legal methods of arriving at the same conclusion. The first method, which I tried at an earlier stage and which is set out in the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was to capture the problem by referring to it as interlocutory in nature. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, indicated, the defect in that approach is that it fails to capture some functions which are not interlocutory.
The second approach, which I endeavoured to follow, was to list on the face of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, everything that is indicated in the Notes on Clauses or in speeches made on behalf of the Government as to any conceivable power that might be delegated to legal officers. The problem in relation to that was well canvassed in the letter from Mr. Paul Goulding, the deputy chairman of the Employment
1016
Lawyers Association, to whom perhaps I may pay tribute as being an outstanding lawyer, even though a member of my chambers, and someone who is committed, as I am sure he would like me to point out, to New Labour and this Government in particular. He speaks as a very experienced employment lawyer, as do his colleagues.
In the letter, the association rightly points out that it is a question of balance. The letter explains why, on balance, the association prefers the noble and learned Lord's amendment to my own. Perhaps I may also mention one or two other matters to which the letter refers since they are important. Although the association agrees in broad terms with that approach, the letter states:
"Legal Officers should be able, in appropriate cases, to deal with interlocutory matters and disposals following withdrawal or settlement. We say in appropriate cases since there may be interlocutory disputes and also disposals following withdrawal or settlement which are sufficiently complex to justify a Chairman sitting to determine the issues. For example, where a settlement provides for payment by instalments and dismissal of the complaint only upon payment of all instalments, with a stay in the meantime. it may not be appropriate for a Legal Officer to make such an order. We hope that the Regulations which will follow the pilot study will provide a mechanism for the allocation of straightforward issues (whether interlocutory or final of the kind discussed above) to Legal Officers, while the more complex matters may still he dealt with by a Chairman [rather than a legal officer]".
The letter also emphasises the association's hope that,
"the Secretary of State will consult fully with practitioners on the pilot study, its results, and the subsequent draft regulations".
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication that those views will be taken seriously and heeded when it comes to any draft regulations.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That, of course, was precisely why I included both those points in my remarks.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I believe that I made it clear, but I shall now make it quite clear, that I have been persuaded both by what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the proposals put forward by the Employment Lawyers Association that my two approaches—interlocutory or listing on the face of the Bill—do not adequately capture what is needed. There needs to be flexibility. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that he and his department do not consider it probable that they will wish to go beyond the list that I have made and the additional point made by interrogatories at this stage. The Government have made that pretty clear in the Notes on Clauses, but it is important in this debate to be clear as to what the Government intend by these powers. As I understand it, they intend no more than I have listed, with one or two marginal additions. Having said that, I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I propose to confine myself to the amendments to Clause 5. When I tabled my

1017
amendment, Amendment No.7, the noble and learned Lord's amendments had not been put forward. I do not propose to press my amendment this evening.
However, what worried me was the opportunity for the chairmen of the tribunal to make regulations dealing with a vast range of matters. I did not think that that was right. The amendment which I tabled was the same in effect as that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, at the Committee stage. I supported him then and thought that he was right. I was not so convinced by his rather elaborate amendment, Amendment No. 6, which seems to include matters which are interlocutory, or could be.
Having heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said and having considered carefully his amendments, although he has abandoned what I hoped might be the solution to the problem—namely the avoidance of much detail—in the circumstances we must accept it. I only add that legislation is always better, more effective and better understood by the people who have to obey it and implement it if it is not too detailed, and if it states principles rather than detail from which principles have to be inferred.
That is the reality of the situation tonight. If my amendment should be pressed, I would oppose the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I have great regard for him and have co-operated with him on various occasions but I would oppose his amendments if he pressed them. However, I gather from what he said that he will not do so.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government fully support the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer in proposing Amendments Nos. 5 and 8, which we hope will meet your Lordships' concerns regarding the provisions relating to legal officers.
In light of noble Lords' continuing reservations, the Government have endeavoured, with the help of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, to go some way towards resolving the problems as noble Lords see them by restricting the power taken in the Bill. As my noble and learned friend indicated, the Government are opposed to limiting the power by listing those functions, as in Amendment No. 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which we consider might be appropriate on the face of the Bill. That would be against the scheme of the existing legislation.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, for obvious reasons of restriction the Government consider it to be inadvisable to refer to the provisions of secondary legislation in the primary legislation, either directly or by implication, when that secondary legislation may from time to time be altered.
We are loath to make changes to the Bill which might lead to unforeseen difficulties in the future which could only be put right by primary legislation. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the points that he made will be carefully considered. That is why I am afraid that the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
1018
We must also oppose Amendment No. 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As has already come out in the discussion, his amendment is similar to that which he supported at the Report stage, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in that it proposes that legal officers are limited to purely interlocutory functions. As I indicated at Report stage, the Government consider "interlocutory" to be too narrow for our purposes. In particular, we are concerned that it would prevent legal officers from making determinations where the applicant has withdrawn his case or where the parties have reached a settlement. We consider such determinations to be eminently suitable to be taken by a legal officer, but they could not be defined as interlocutory.
I therefore urge noble Lords to join me in supporting Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, which would limit the functions of legal officers by preventing them from determining proceedings before a tribunal, other than in the two suitable circumstances which I have just outlined. The amendments thus specify what legal officers may not do on the face of the primary legislation, leaving the detail of those tasks which they can perform to the regulations.
I also hope that noble Lords will join the Government in supporting the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer in moving minor technical amendments to Clause 3 which are consequential upon his amendments to Clause 5. The need for these amendments only became apparent when we came to look at possible ways of meeting your Lordships' concerns relating to legal officers. They will usefully clarify the existing provisions regarding the duties which chairmen perform on behalf of the tribunal rather than as the tribunal. They will guarantee a clear distinction between those tasks which a legal officer might perform and those which chairmen carry out for the tribunal.
Perhaps I may once again assure noble Lords that all regulations giving powers to legal officers will be drafted in full consultation with the tribunal presidents. The Government regard the role of the presidents in this and in the pilot project as particularly important. Changes to the procedure regulations relating to legal officers will also be subject to consultation with the Council on Tribunals and to parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, particularly for the last sentence. Once again I have to declare an interest. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Renton, both for their conciliatory attitude and for their courtesy in telling me beforehand what was in their minds.
It is almost churlish perhaps for me to make a point in the circumstances, but I could not resist doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that he hoped that the Government did not have in mind to confer on legal officers any powers other than the ones which were included in his list. I remind him that in the letter to which he and I referred there were two examples of

1019
additional powers which neither of us had thought of. I shall not go into detail, but one was an exchange of lists.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I appreciated that. What I had intended to say and had hoped that I had said is that in addition to my list I hoped that the matters that had been referred to in that letter were the only other matters that the Government had in mind at the moment. That was for the good reason that otherwise Parliament would not be properly informed as to the Government's intentions. I did not confine it to my list, or did not mean to do so.
While on my feet, perhaps I may also make it clear that I did not wish in my earlier speech to criticise the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, for whose work I have unbounded admiration. However, I doubt whether even its members are capable of anticipating all circumstances in which over-broad powers may be sought. It seems to me that what has happened in this case indicates that they may have nodded slightly on this occasion by not appreciating the need for the amendment that the noble and learned Lord has now brought before the House.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for both those clarifications. Perhaps I may adopt the point which he made in relation to the latter question, to reinforce what I was saying about the earlier matter. The point I was making was not that here was a power which had not been included, but that the fact that we are all at this stage thinking of matters which had not occurred to us earlier should not lead us to conclude that we have now thought of all the matters and that no one will ever think of another one. That was the only point I was making.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, rather indicated that we have overloaded my amendment with detail. We were trying to balance an absence of detail—I have always supported the views of the noble Lord and his committee in relation to the importance of simplicity—against writing in the safeguards for which he and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were arguing. I thought we had the balance right.
I wish to raise just one further matter. It may be that I was being somewhat dim and misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he said that he was concerned that the regulations referred to in Clause 7 were to be made by the chairman. They are of course to be made by the Secretary of State. I apologise if I misunderstood him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for intervening. I was referring to Clause 5. Fortunately he has cut out that part of Clause 5 with which I found difficulty. At the bottom of page 3 the Bill states that,
"regulations to be done by a tribunal may he done by the chairman alone."
1020
It worried me that the chairman alone should take on such a tremendous responsibility. However, the noble and learned Lord has left that out and replaced it with something which I find more acceptable.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps this is not the moment to take that debate further but I am grateful for the elucidation. I would have been prepared to defend the text even before my amendment. I hesitate to say that the matter is academic because some of my closest friends are academics. However, the matter no longer arises for your Lordships.
Nothing remains but for me to wholly endorse the tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, paid to Mr. Paul Goulding. I have been grateful for his help both on this Bill and on other occasions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
("(4A) Omit paragraph (f) (which specifies proceedings in which the person bringing the proceedings has given written notice withdrawing the case), apart from the word '`and".").
Page 3, line 22, after ("(3C)(a),") insert—
("( ) the carrying-out of pre-hearing reviews in accordance with regulations under subsection (1) of section 9 (including the exercise of powers in connection with such reviews in accordance with regulations under paragraph (b) of that subsection).").
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("as provided by that subsection") and insert ("by the person mentioned in subsection ( I )(a) alone").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Legal officers]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 4 and insert ("After subsection (6A) of section 4 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which is inserted by section 3(5) of this Act) insert—
"(6B) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may (subject to subsection (6C)) also provide that any act which—

(a) by virtue of subsection (6) may be done by the person mentioned in subsection ( I )(a) alone, and

(b) is of a description specified by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
("(6C) But regulations under subsection (6B) may not specify—
(a) the determination of any proceedings, other than proceedings in which the parties have agreed the terms of the determination or in which the person bringing the proceedings has given notice of the withdrawal of the case, or
(b) the carrying-out of pre-hearing reviews in accordance with regulations under section 9(1).'").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [ACAS arbitration scheme]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) A scheme set out in an order under this section may, in relation to an arbitration conducted in accordance with the law of Scotland, make provision—

(a) that a reference on a preliminary point may be made,Or

(b) conferring a right of appeal which shall lie,

to the relevant court on such grounds and in respect of such matters as may be specified in the scheme: and in this subsection "relevant court" means such court, being the Court of Session or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, as may be specified in the scheme, and a different court may be specified as regards different grounds or matters.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to make for Scotland a provision which the Bill already makes for England and Wales. The reason the Bill has to provide for that in different terms is that the existing law which is to be amended is different in the two jurisdictions.
The purpose to be addressed is to make provision for challenges to arbitration awards. We are addressing the power which the Bill gives to ACAS to prepare a scheme and to the Secretary of State to make an order bringing it into effect. The power which it is proposed to give is a wide one. There may be differences of opinion as to what use should be made of the power and where the balance should lie between the respective advantages of reviewability and finality.
I know that some of my friends would like ACAS and the Government to make a wider use of the power than they seem disposed to do. Amendment No. 9 relates not to the use which is to be made of the power, but to the width of the power itself. As presently drafted, the Bill would permit the inclusion of any of the challenges and appeals set out in Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act. That relates to England and Wales.
As my noble friend Lord Haskel explained at Report stage, in England and Wales the Government propose to use Section 68 of the Arbitration Act with such modifications as are necessary for the purpose. They and ACAS propose to include in the scheme a remedy in respect of serious irregularity as defined in that section and such wider remedies as may be required by European law. As I understand it, the Government's intention is that the position should be as nearly identical in England and Wales on the one hand and in Scotland on the other as it is possible to achieve.
It was my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Wedderburn who first alerted us to the problem of jurisdiction in Scotland. My noble friends expressed concern as to which court should exercise that remedial jurisdiction. We are probably agreed that where the complaint relates to procedural errors, the High Court is experienced in dealing with matters of that kind. But where a question of substantial employment law is involved, the court with greater experience of that is the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
I was readily persuaded of the validity of my noble friends' argument on that question, as were the Government, and that too can be achieved in England
1022
and Wales by the provisions of the Arbitration Act with the necessary modifications. But in Scotland appeals and challenges on the ground of serious irregularity do not rest on any arbitration Act. There is no Scottish equivalent of the Arbitration Act. Challenges can be provided for in any arbitration scheme without reference to any statutory power.
I claim no expertise in the law of Scotland, but my advice is that the court with jurisdiction to hear such challenges would be the Court of Session. There would be no power in an arbitration scheme to confer jurisdiction instead on the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Those challenges therefore which in England and Wales are intended to be heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal could not be so referred in Scotland in the absence of separate provision in the Bill. That is because there can be no power at common law to invoke a jurisdiction which is set out and defined in statute.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to make that specific provision. It will not empower the Government to do anything in Scotland which it could not do in England and Wales by using the Arbitration Act provision, suitably modified. I appreciate that the amendment is moved at a comparatively late stage. There is no secret about the reason. It was when the point raised by my noble friends in relation to the desirability of referring matters of substantive law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was being considered that the question came to light.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to intervene. Can he give us any reference either in my speeches or in the speeches of my noble friends which made a distinction between England and Scotland in the manner he now asserts? Our memory is that we made the proposals that we made in Committee as applying to both jurisdictions alike.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I shall try again. My noble friend is absolutely right. None of us mentioned Scotland because at that time the problem of a difference between the two jurisdictions had not occurred to any of us. Perhaps it should have occurred to me, but it did not. My noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lady Turner raised the question of whether this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court or by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, no!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McCarthy says "no". But that is precisely what my noble friends were discussing at one stage in our debates.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I wish the noble and learned Lord would cite such speeches. That is all we are asking of him. When did we say such things?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend Lord McCarthy did. There is no doubt that my noble friend Lady Turner, as she

1023
indicates, raised that point and I thought that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn also did so. If he did not, I withdraw the gratitude I was expressing to him for raising the matter. I am sure that, given the opportunity, I could find the reference. It was in view of what they said that we said, "They are right"; and that is what gave rise to all of this.
My noble friend does not wish to accept the accolade for having raised the matter. I should not have raised it. Perhaps the whole thing was by a side wind. I am not accusing him of committing any offence. I am trying to give him praise which I felt was due to him.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Of course we raised the point by raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. From that the noble and learned Lord remembered Scotland. I have to say to him that I always knew that Section 108 of the Arbitration Act excluded Scotland from most of that Act. I shall explain why when I come to make my speech. I had not forgotten Scotland at all.
9 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, we are making some progress. First, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn confirms that he raised the point and so, I know, did my noble friend Lady Turner. We have got that far. So I can repeat the gratitude which I was trying to express to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. Perhaps we can restore some atmosphere of peace.
Of course, no one mentioned Scotland. My noble friend said that it was in his mind all the time. Perhaps it was. I have never concealed the fact that my noble friend's learning on this subject greatly exceeds mine. 1 was not aware of it. Certainly, if I had ever come across Section 108—I have no reason to think that it has ever crossed my path—I had totally forgotten it. So we know how far we have got. I have not accused my noble friend of saying anything improper. In fact, I now accept that his learning on the point greatly exceeds my own.
That takes the argument to the point where I was trying to say that the amendment was moved at a comparatively late stage. It was hoped that the consultation necessary to produce the amendment would have been available at Report stage. But the consultation had not been concluded and so it was not possible to introduce it at Report stage. I was hoping at Report stage at least to give detailed notice of what was intended, but your Lordships will recollect that because of the other business which the House had to consider we were under some pressure to curtail our debates. If it assists, I confess that my explanation was less than explicit. With that mitigation, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for that.
Before I turn to the amendment set down by my noble friends, perhaps I may don an appropriate white sheet. At Report stage (recorded at col. 716 of the Official Report) my noble friend Lord Wedderburn intervened in the course of a speech I was making to refer to subsection (3) of Section 68 of the Arbitration Act. I misunderstood the words to which he was referring.
1024
The only explanation available to me is that I was being more than usually thick. I plead in mitigation that I was simultaneously trying to following my noble friend's intervention and to deal with a different intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the length of time the debate was likely to take. So I should make it clear for the record that my noble friend's reference was accurate, and I tender an unqualified apology to him.
I am grateful to my noble friends for giving notice of their concern. As I ventured to indicate, the difference between my noble friends on the one hand and the Government and me on the other is not one of substance. It is simply a question of construction and drafting. We are agreed on what we wish to achieve in the Bill. We wish to confer a wide power on the arbitration schemes, to which Clause 7 relates, to provide for appeals and we want that power to be as nearly identical north and south of the Border as is possible to achieve. We may not be in agreement as to the use which would be made of that power when the arbitration schemes come to be made but there is no issue as to how wide the power should be and it is not in issue that it should be co-extensive in England and Scotland. The only issue is whether the Bill as amended in the way I propose achieves that purpose.
My noble friends do not think that it does, or at least they do not think it achieves it elegantly. I can only reply that until now it has not been suggested that the parliamentary draftsman has failed to achieve that result in relation to England and Wales. I am advised by the parliamentary draftsman and Scottish lawyers that, as amended in the way I propose, it will achieve that purpose in Scotland. It is true that the Bill would use different language in relation to the respective jurisdictions and I agree that where possible, if one wishes to make the same provision for two situations, it is better to use the same wording. But there are two factors which determine the form of statutory drafting. One is the result which it is desired to achieve. The other is the existing law which it is intended to amend. If that is different in the two cases, it may be necessary to use different language.
It is probably true that my noble friend's amendment may achieve substantially the same result, but those advising on draftsmanship take the view that in England, where there is an existing code relating to appeals in arbitrations, it is better to use that existing body of law than to reinvent the wheel and to seek to run another provision in parallel with it. My noble friend's amendment would in effect either ignore the existing code in the Arbitration Act or leave it to duplicate the new provision. We are not competing for the Nobel Prize for Literature. We are trying to provide a workable piece of legislation for practitioners and predictability for litigants. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 10:
Line 3, leave out ("conducted in accordance with the law of Scotland").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to amend Amendments Nos. 3 and 9 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. In Amendment No. 10 we are seeking to remove the words,
"conducted in accordance with the law of Scotland".
and in Amendment No. 11 we are seeking to insert, after line 9,

("(i) in arbitrations conducted in accordance with the law of England. the High Court or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and

(ii) in arbitrations conducted in accordance with the law of Scotland,").

I listened with great interest to what my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell had to say in moving his amendment. He knows very well that we do not oppose arbitration. on the contrary, I have frequently commended him for bringing forward the Bill because I know it was intended to make things easier for dismissed employees. However, I and my noble friends believe it is important to get it right, and this, with great respect, we have been trying to do. That is what our amendments seek to do.
Incidentally, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the patience with which he has dealt with our concerns on this issue and for the letters he has sent to us. That is very much appreciated. He has confirmed that it is the Government's intention to permit challenges on the grounds of material irregularity and that there is also a commitment to provide for any necessary appeal or referral on points of European Community law, subject to the ECJ's ruling in the arbitration cases referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, at Report stage. We are grateful for that assurance. Apparently, the Government believe that this can be done, as it has been explained, for England and Wales by using Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996, appropriately modified. However, as that Act does not apply north of the Border, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has said, the Government have agreed that an amendment is required to provide powers which, if necessary, will enable jurisdiction for any appeal in Scotland to be referred to the relevant court.
However, in my opinion and in that of my noble friends, that does not really answer the problem as we see it. In fact, we believe that it could create further difficulties since very distinct differences would then exist between procedures on each side of the Border. Our amendment to the amendment seeks to maintain parallel situations in both Scotland and England and Wales. Perhaps I may explain why I believe that is necessary.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment allows for appeals in the Court of Session or in the Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunal. An appeal is an appeal is an appeal, as I understand it. Delegated authority cannot alter their nature as appeals. However, that is different from Section 68 of the Arbitration Act allowing for an application to the High Court in England, which would inevitably, I am advised, be more narrow in character than a full appeal.
The letter from the Minister, which I have already quoted, says that it is intended to allow challenges on the grounds of material irregularity. The Minister's letter caused me to look again at the Arbitration Act and particularly at Section 68. There is no reference there to material irregularity. In fact—and this is confirmed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—the whole section and the references are about serious irregularity, which I believe is probably something different. Not all material irregularities are serious.
But I suppose that serious irregularity is not a surprising term to be used in arbitration Acts since it was originally intended to deal with commercial contracts and not employment disputes. The Minister's letter refers to the power of modification. But would that power extend to material irregularities? Would it be possible to extend modification to modify Section 68 in order to deal with material irregularities?
It may then get about that there are fewer opportunities for appeal in England and Wales and that it is best to have one's case heard in Scotland. Would the appellants and their advisers manoeuvre in order to get cases heard in Scotland? If that should transpire to be the situation it would not be very good for the future viability of the scheme. As I have emphasised repeatedly, we want the scheme to be a viable one.
Surely, the sensible approach is to treat the scheme, as near as one can, exactly the same on both sides of the Border. That is exactly what our amendment seeks to do. There is then less likelihood of confusion and argument about precisely what is meant by Section 68 of the Arbitration Act. We want the scheme to be successful, but it has much more chance of being so if the procedures both north and south of the Border are not only genuinely parallel but seen to be so. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner. Despite the hour, it seems to me that this is a very important debate for thousands of workers and their employers. Whatever fault lies on any of us—and perhaps we all share it—this is the first occasion when we have been able to debate properly the Government's intentions and with my noble and learned friend Lord Archer what has come to be called the "safety valve" which is necessary against perverse awards.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 7th January explaining that the Government saw one virtue in my noble and learned friend's amendment, which is to facilitate references to the European Court of Justice. In so far as it does that, it has our full support.
As regards domestic law there was a choice as to whether or not to apply appellate rights to Scottish courts alone. In our amendment to the main amendment, the central question is why now, at the last hurdle, we are forced to invent in domestic law a special jurisdiction for appeals to the Court of Session and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Scotland, while leaving in England only applications based on a modified Section 68 of the Arbitration Act? I comment, as my noble friends did, that applications of that sort under

1027
Section 68 are not precisely the same as what is usually called a right of appeal. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for referring to Section 68 in its full glory. I wholly accept that at that stage of the debate on Report he was under intolerable pressure to get on with a complicated argument which it was not possible then to rehearse in full, although we can do so now.
As I have already said, I did not—I claim no particular merit for this—in one sense forget Section 108 which states that the Arbitration Act for the most part shall not apply to Scotland. However, my noble friends and I felt that it was legitimate to rely on the speeches made (particularly by the Minister because making orders is a matter for the Secretary of State) to ensure that any problem that arose could be adjusted by a modification order under Clause 7(6).
In other words, nothing was said either at Second Reading, in Committee—it certainly was not said by us in Committee—or on Report about there being a need for a special procedure for Scotland because an order of modification for Section 68 was not available. I do not accept that it was not available. I suspect that no Scots lawyers are present, but such advice as I have been able to acquire is that an order could have been made in the same terms. I say "in the same terms" advisedly because if it was not to be made under Section 68 and Clause 7, it could have been made in the order bringing the scheme into force by quill pen, as it were, rather than by reference on a keyboard.
The Minister can use the order authorising the scheme as part of the jurisdiction. That was not excluded from such an order. Either the argument about Scots law is right, which I contest, or, if it is wrong, there is a double possibility for the Minister to make a suitable order.
My noble friend the Minister kindly wrote to me last week saying that today's amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend would, after the modifications to be made in the order,
"allow the arbitration scheme to work in the same way North and South of the Border".
Whatever the argument in Scots law, if that is the objective, why cannot we have in the Bill the same scheme for both jurisdictions? Surely the Minister has an obligation to tell us today exactly why he cannot modify Section 68 and adjust any orders that he is to make when the Bill goes through rather than have what most would see as separate Scots and English provisions. I quite understand that there may be some difficult argument behind the veil, as it were.
However, the matter goes further than that. In another letter to me, on 15th December—I join in the tributes that we pay to the Minister for his powers of keeping up with the correspondence which has quite outgunned us—the Minister spoke of his intent to allow,
"challenges on the ground of material irregularities".
I join my noble friend in asking whether that is still regarded as possible.
1028
Today my noble and learned friend and the Government have struck out on a totally new route. The Minister wrote to me on 7th January saying that after the necessary orders, in the result,
"the two schemes will he the same".
Even allowing for a certain licence in the phraseology, the two schemes will not be the same—and not only for the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Turner, but also because the courts in Scotland will be given a right of appeal whereas in England there is a right to make applications. A right of appeal normally includes at any rate some points of law. If the two things are meant to be the same, perhaps when the Bill goes to another place the wording can be made the same. It is not very elegant to call the same thing by two different words, especially when in law the two are different.
However, there is a deeper cause for concern. This is rather more a personal view. The Government and ACAS—especially ACAS, it seems to me—have gone into this enterprise with a fixed belief—some would say with virtually a closed mind—that they will not permit any appeals on any questions of law in pursuit of what is called "finality". Of course, arbitration awards should in general be final, but not if they are unlawful or ultra vires. I do not think that any lawyer would expect to find finality in an award with an unlawful base. Why should the law control the arbitrator who unfortunately makes a serious irregularity in his procedure, but exercise no control whatever over an award based on a fallacious interpretation of the applicable law which, under the Bill, is to be found on unfair dismissal in Part X of the Employment Rights Act?
The ACAS memorandum drawn up for your Lordships states that awards must be legally enforceable but that there will be no right of appeal on a point of law. I am not alone in finding that bizarre. It is an extremist ambition for "finality" which will give rise to one of the more important and striking own goals to have been scored by a Bill in recent times.
Why do I say that? If it is found that on its face an award does not apply the principles of Part X of the 1996 Act on unfair dismissal in England at any rate and perhaps in Scotland—we do not yet know what the right of appeal will be in Scotland—there will be no room for an appeal on the point of law. Suppose that an arbitrator awards damages, compensation and a right to reinstatement on that basis. What should the employer be advised to do? We all know what advice he should receive if he is serious in fighting the case. Many of these matters tend to be test cases for a large number of workers. He will be advised to go to a place where his legal rights and public functions are protected. He will apply to the High Court for judicial review. The arbitrator does not simply fulfil a private arrangement. It is consensual but it is a public function under a scheme drawn up by statute and is manifestly appropriate for judicial review if the facts so give effect. But neither of the parties has given consent that embraces an award that goes outside Part X on unfair dismissal.
There is therefore every prospect from the Government's perspective that whoever is right—unless "appeal" in Scotland means an appeal in the normal

1029
sense—sooner or later (one cannot say when) there will be an extended series of applications for judicial review in the High Court which will increase rather than decrease the same legalism which its sponsors wish to avoid. I refer to the authoritative study of Professor Linda Dickens, which pointed out a few years ago that what is crucial about legalism is not so much the jurisdiction of the appeal body but the nature of it. That was why we began the long series of debates on the Bill by trying to get the jurisdiction of the EAT extended. That is perhaps now more likely than it was in Committee.
There is a double paradox in the point. In the Arbitration Act, Section 69 permits a limited range of appeals on points of law against arbitral awards with the leave of the High Court and only where the question is one of general public importance. My noble and learned friend referred to Sections 67, 68 and 69. I am sure that they were considered. However, we have never had it explained to us why only Section 68 should be looked at. If one must give up the objections to Section 68, what is wrong with Section 69, which is about the narrowest form of application against an error of law that one can possibly imagine? It is narrower than normal judicial review and it is one that we still say should go to the employment appeal tribunal north and south of the Border.
The progress of this legislation will provide legal archaeologists with research work for years to come. It is hoped that this amendment to the amendment will lead my noble and learned friend and the Government to have another dispassionate look at the clause, especially during the remaining stages of the Bill elsewhere, so as to establish the same basic law north and south of the Border, not one that is built upon hidden arguments as far as the Bill is concerned like some legal Rubik's cube but one that is unambiguous so that the two systems of law are the same on the face of the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we should say, yet again, that this is intended to be a friendly amendment. The amendment, which I support, is designed to extend what would be the new subsection (7) proposed by my noble and learned friend, which applies at the moment to Scotland alone, to the whole of the UK. We see that as a halfway house towards solving the difficult problem of combining relatively autonomous arbitration, which is all one can reasonably ask for, with an exceptional ability for external reference, which is what one has the right to expect.
The words of the amendment are not full enough for us, but we will take them tonight except that, unfortunately, as presently stated, they only apply to 8.6 per cent. of the working people of this country. We know in rough terms what they would mean. We know that alleged breaches of European labour law would be dealt with in one way, whereas serious irregularities would be dealt with in another way. We know that, when we reach the position where the Government produce orders, the precise grounds, and the appropriate courts in each case, will be specified therein. At this point in the game, that seems a reasonable way of
1030
dealing with the problem. But we can see no reason why that solution should not be extended across the whole of the UK. But not so. The Bill leaves us with what I regard as the irrelevant, unnecessary, inappropriate intervention of the 1996 Act.
Even at this stage one is bound to ask how that came about. It cannot be that the Government—my noble and learned friend Lord Archer may be different—were not aware that they had to do something about the Arbitration Act 1996, because in the Notes on Clauses before we reached the Floor of the House, they stated:
"The new Section 212A(6) concerns the application of the Arbitration Act 1996 to arbitrations under the ACAS scheme. All arbitrations in England and Wales are covered by the provisions of the Arbitration Act unless explicitly excluded by statute. The clause provides that nothing in the 1996 Act shall apply to the ACAS scheme unless the Secretary of State in making an order approving the scheme applies the provisions of Part I of that Act".
and so on. In other words, one would have had reason to expect, if one read that, that the Government knew that they had to exclude the effect of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the operation of this Bill. Otherwise its presence would undermine the effectiveness of the Act.
The problem was that the Government went on to read back in 80 per cent. of the Act. The Act has 110 sections and four schedules, and covers 35 pages. Of that, 80 per cent., or 33 pages, still applies. Thus, we have been forced, because of the way the Government have conducted the debate, to look at the Arbitration Act 1996.
But I say that, if the provisions of Part I of the Act were applied to the day-to-day application of industrial arbitration, they would ruin the arbitration process. One would have to define the agreement, the procedure and the immunities. One would have to appoint experts. One would have a right to legal representation. One would have provisional awards, and a whole series of other things. Of course the Government will say that they would not apply all that to every arbitration under the arbitration scheme, so why is it there in the first place?
The Government may say that this is all very well, but the amendment about which we are talking does not deal with all of the provisions of Part I of the Act, it only deals directly with Section 68. But I ask noble Lords to look at Section 68, and to think how appropriate that would be in an arbitration scheme run by ACAS. There are three things to say at this point. I have to say the first to my noble friend the Minister, because I do not believe that he has yet taken it on board. The first thing is that Section 68 does not just refer to "serious irregularity". It does not just say that. It is a "serious irregularity" which causes "substantial injustice". That is what it says, and that is what the Minister will have to put in the order: "serious irregularity which causes substantial injustice". It then goes on to give nine different grounds upon which there could be an appeal, as it were, under the system: unfairness, partiality, breach of procedure, exceeding powers, a failure to deal with all issues raised, certain uncertain or ambiguous words, fraud, public policy and any admitted irregularity.
Anyone concerned with industrial relations arbitration will tell you that if these criteria were ever put in a statute or an order, it would ruin most arbitrations. Most

1031
arbitrations do not deal with all the issues raised. The parties raise very funny issues, many of which they do not want dealt with; they merely want to air them. You have to know which ones they want dealt with. Most arbitrators deliberately, intentionally, use uncertain, ambiguous words. They mean one thing to one side and another thing to the other. That is what arbitration is all about. Moreover, anyone who did not like the result of arbitration could allege that it was unfair and partial.
I am prepared to bet that, if the Government do not get rid of Section 68 and if our friends in ACAS take any notice of Section 68, it will be inoperable.
Of course if one is to have a sensible system of arbitration with some kind of external review we do need a list of sensible grounds. If the arbitration is unreasonable, irrational or arbitrary that might well constitute sensible, reasonable grounds, but they do not exist in Section 68. Therefore it is important for the Government to begin by getting rid of Section 68 and accepting our amendments.
I realise that that will not happen tonight. However, fortunately for the Government and for us, the Bill is only beginning its passage through Parliament. Therefore, before it reaches Second Reading and Committee in another place, there is plenty of time for ACAS and the Government to pull out their fingers and produce a draft of the scheme. If we could see a draft, we could work backwards from what the scheme suggests to what should be on the face of the Bill.
Therefore my first question to the Minister is: when can we see a draft of the scheme? Our argument has always been that something sensible must be on the face of the Bill. The further away that is from the Arbitration Act 1996 the better off we shall be.
However, if the Government persist I wish to ask a second and simpler question. Is there a precedent anywhere in the country for a Bill which produces the same orders on a different statutory base, based on geography? I take it that we shall not have different orders making different provisions, but if we are to, for God's sake tell us now because we shall ask what the difference is.
Thirdly, if the Government continue to go down the road of Section 68, do they really intend that serious irregularities qualified in the way I have specified should cover all nine grounds of that section? Surely not, because, as I say, if it did, it would make arbitration impossible.
Finally, when the Government agree, can the principles of Clause 7 be put on the face of the Bill? That may involve the dissolution of our amendment and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, but that would be well enough. What we have argued for all along, and what this House has argued for over and over again with the previous government, is that the principles of Bills should be put on the face of them and that everything should not be left to secondary legislation. When the Government find out what the principles are, will they put them on the face of the Bill? I support Amendment No. 10.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I briefly interrupt this dialogue, if that is what it is, to say that I followed
1032
entirely the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, except in relation to one point. He suggested that the arbitration scheme would be used in test cases. I cannot imagine anybody advising an employer or an employee, in what was known to be a test case, to use the arbitration procedure in the first instance. I imagine that the advice would be to go straight to the tribunal for an authoritative statement of the law and then the normal appeal procedures would apply.
The only other point is that I wish to question the expression used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in his opening remarks when he referred to—I hope I noted it correctly—such wider remedies as may be required by European law. I suspect that such further remedies as may be required by European law will not widen significantly the ambit of appeal. They will apply in only very limited circumstances. But if he knows or thinks otherwise, perhaps he will indicate that to the House because it may be a straw at which we could all be clutching at this late hour.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I make a brief intervention as an erstwhile practitioner. As has been said many times before in debating this piece of legislation, on this side of the House we are very anxious that the arbitration scheme should work. From my experience of industrial tribunals, I know that for an employee who has been unfairly dismissed to be reinstated as a result of an industrial tribunal award does not happen any more. Therefore, the only way in which to deal with an unfairly dismissed employee is by internal arbitration. Therefore, this ACAS scheme is welcome. I am only sorry that we have got ourselves into this tangle.
I look forward to the response of my noble friend Lord Haskel to the question posed by my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn. But I ask him this evening to give us an assurance that as far as is humanly possible, the arbitration scheme will work in the same way north and south of the Border and that if experience shows that it is not working in that way because of some of the issues raised by my noble friends, the Government will use the powers in the Bill to revise the scheme. It would be disastrous, as my noble friend Lady Turner said, if there were a difference between Scotland and England. It would damage the scheme and trade unionists would not use the internal scheme if it is clear that it is flawed.
Secondly, I seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be the closest possible consultation with the users; that is, the representatives of the employers and trades unions. On a number of occasions I have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Archer refer to consultation with the president. I welcome that, particularly as we have a new president in England and Wales. But the people who know about such matters are the employers' representatives and the trades unions. Therefore, I seek an assurance that there will continue to be the closest possible consultation with the users so that when the scheme is published—I hope sincerely

1033
that it will be published very soon—we know that it is with the assent of the people who will use the arbitration scheme.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government fully support the initiative of my noble and learned friend in tabling this amendment. It may be convenient for the House if I refer also to the amendments tabled by my noble friends, Lady Turner, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy. The Government have considered carefully the points raised by my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, and I am grateful to them for contacting me well in advance of the debate; indeed, they have referred to the considerable correspondence that has taken place.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer made clear, his amendment is a straightforward and technical one to ensure that the proposed ACAS scheme for the arbitration of unfair dismissal disputes—here I can give an assurance to my noble friend Lord Gladwin—will work in a similar way both north and south of the Border, subject of course to the background of the different legal systems.
Arbitration law is different north and south of the Border. In England and Wales there is a codified approach to arbitration in the form of the Arbitration Act 1996, but in Scotland that is not so. Therefore, the Government propose to build upon the existing legislative framework to provide an arbitration alternative which will be available throughout Great Britain. The scheme will work in the same way both north and south of the Border, subject, as I said, to the different legal systems. It is important to emphasise that, effectively, the individual substantive rights under the scheme will be the same throughout Great Britain.
To make the same provision for England and Wales would be unnecessary. Anything that the amendment would enable us to do for Scotland can already be done in respect of England and Wales by using the Secretary of State's power to apply and modify the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. It is never desirable to duplicate legislation. The method chosen in the Bill is to use the provisions of the Arbitration Act with appropriate modifications.
As regards the residual right of appeal in Scotland. I should point out that there will be no appeal in Scotland on a point of law unless one is written into the scheme. Any challenge under the scheme as it applies to Scotland will be strictly limited to those specified in the scheme. The Government consider that the approach proposed by my noble and learned friend's amendment is the most effective way to ensure that the two schemes are as similar on those points as is achievable.
I turn now to the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner: namely, that people in England will seek to have their arbitration heard in Scotland. In response, I can only say that the scheme will provide that cases which would have been heard by a tribunal in England and Wales will be heard by arbitrators under the law of
1034
England and Wales. Similarly, cases which would have been heard in Scotland by a tribunal will be heard by arbitrators under the law of Scotland.
My noble friend Lady Turner and other noble Lords raised the question of appeal or challenge and referred to material irregularity. We have all agreed that there should be some form of safety valve to cover the situation where an individual has suffered an injustice because of the way that the arbitrator has conducted the arbitration. That may be because the arbitrator has not acted fairly or impartially or because he has not dealt with the issues placed before him. Alternatively, the arbitrator may not have conducted the procedures in accordance with what was agreed. Those examples are included in the types of serious irregularity contained in Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. As noble Lords are aware, the Government intend to use their power to apply this part of the Act, modified as appropriate, in England and Wales, and a parallel provision will be written into the scheme for Scotland.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves this point, I understand the situations he describes and what the parties can do in terms of making an application for serious irregularity, but what does he say a party should do if he finds that the arbitrator has made his award based upon principles which have little to do with unfair dismissal?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I do not know whether that is a question one can answer at this stage. We are dealing here with material irregularity and serious irregularity. I am not sure whether the point my noble friend has made comes under that category. We cannot apply the Arbitration Act serious irregularity provisions north of the Border. Serious irregularity is specifically defined in the Act. However, we can specify what we regard to be material irregularities for the Scottish scheme by listing those which we consider appropriate from the list in the Act. We do not propose to include any other irregularities which might be called material. Our intention is therefore limited; namely, to ensure that the two schemes will be as similar as the laws permit. The powers of the Bill would extend to material irregularity.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the provision is based on Section 68 of the 1996 Act which mentions serious irregularity but then mentions another qualification. Is the Minister producing some additional ground or does he accept all the grounds in Section 68? Are we to have the provision exactly as it is in Section 68?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can repeat only what my noble and learned friend Lord Archer has said: the scheme has not yet been prepared. When the ACAS scheme is prepared, everything will be quite clear.

1035
I cannot give any undertaking when the ACAS scheme will be prepared. The responsibility for preparing the scheme lies with ACAS.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, will the scheme be prepared before the Commons reaches either Second Reading or the Committee stage?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure. I can give no undertaking that the scheme will be drafted until the Bill has completed its passage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the scheme will not be available until after the Bill has gone through all its stages and is on the statute book? Is that the situation?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, that is the situation. Turning to the arbitration scheme, the essential point about the scheme is that entry into it is voluntary. Both parties have agreed to submit their dispute to an arbitrator and to abide by the arbitrator's decision. They may prefer the finality which it offers, or they may seek a speedier resolution, or they may prefer greater privacy, but most importantly they will be aware that there is no appeal on points of law. Finality is an aspect of the scheme which not only the Government and ACAS—here I give an assurance to my noble friend Lord Gladwin—but also the TUC and others consider to be vital. It is clearly important that the provisions of the scheme should be different from the provisions of tribunals.
I turn to the questions from my noble friend Lord McCarthy. He asked when the scheme can be seen. I have already responded to that point. Regarding any precedent based on geography, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter. As to whether all the measures will be included in the scheme, I am afraid that we shall have to see what the scheme provides. Can the principles be put on the face of the Bill? We think that we are putting the principles on the face of the Bill.
I do not wish to draw out the discussion further at this late hour. I conclude by saying that the Government support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer but cannot support that of my noble friends Lord Wedderburn, Lady Turner and Lord McCarthy.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the debate on the amendment and on the amendment to the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendment drafted by myself and my noble friends. I have listened carefully to the reasons given for the lack of support for it. I was hoping that, before the Bill reached another place, the ACAS scheme would be available and therefore it would be possible for the other place to consider what we have said here in conjunction with the ACAS scheme. I believe that that would have been easier for everyone. However, we have just been told that the ACAS scheme will not be available until the Bill has been through all its stages and is on the statute book. I regret to hear that.
1036
However, in the light of what has been said, in particular by my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn—they have both had extensive experience in this area; my noble friend Lord McCarthy is an arbitrator—that, when the Bill reaches another place and is in Committee there, some attention will be paid to what we have said in this House.
I believe that what we have said is quite important. From the standpoint of the future appellant, it is perhaps very important. As we have all indicated, we wanted to ensure that without any doubt the scheme on both sides of the border was exactly parallel. With respect, I do not think that the amendment by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer achieves that, but our amendment would have done. I regret that the amendment has not found greater favour with my noble and learned friend and the Minister. However, in the circumstances it is not our intention this evening to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I must have made a complete pig's ear of introducing the debate. I totally failed to make clear what the amendment was about. From the speeches of all my noble friends and—I say it with pain—the noble Lord, Meston, who is usually on the ball in these matters, one would have thought that what we were proposing was that in England and Wales the methods of challenging an award were to be based on Section 68 whereas in Scotland they were to embrace everything included in the word "appeal". That simply is not what was being proposed.
There are two quite separate issues. First, what should be the extent of the power to make arbitration schemes conferred by this Bill? Secondly, and quite separately, what use should be made of that power when the schemes come to be made? The extent of the power is intended to be in the widest terms—just as wide in England and Wales as it is in Scotland. That is the intention; and that is what my amendment—and I think possibly my noble friends' amendment—would achieve. What use is to be made of that power is a quite separate matter and I fully understand the feelings of my noble friends about it. I understand their anxieties.
We have had the debate before. I do not propose to extend this debate by going into the merits of that matter tonight. But that is not what we are debating. That is not what we are talking about writing into the Bill; and that has nothing to do with either my noble friends' amendment or mine. The question as regards the Bill is how we achieve the widest power, however that power is to be used.
I have said it before; in fact I believe I have said it twice; and I have now said it again. "If I say it three times, it is true." If I have still failed to make the matter clear, there is nothing more that I can do about it.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with two matters that arose. The first relates to the modification provisions referred to by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. The modification provision, in Clause 7(6) of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to modify Part I of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act does not apply in Scotland. That is why the procedure of the modification provision cannot be used to get that result.

1037
The second matter relates to references to Europe. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn rather gave the impression that the advantage of the amendment moved by my noble friend was that it enabled references to be made to Europe, implying that the present scheme of the Act, as amended by my amendment, would not have that effect. Of course reference can be made to Europe whichever channel we go down.
Perhaps I may clarify the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If I referred to "such wider appeals as were required by Europe", I meant "such further appeals"; they may not be much wider. However, we do not yet know, because the European Court is still considering the matter. So I cannot take the question any further.
There would be no point in spinning out the debate any further. I apologise if I did not make the matter clear at the outset. Perhaps in future debates I shall say it three times when I introduce such matters.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 10, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Internal appeal procedures and unfair dismissal awards]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 12:
Page II, line 8, at end insert ("but in no case shall the award be reduced if the employer's procedures fail to arrange for all internal appeals to he heard and determined, and for the complainant to be informed of the result, before the end of two months beginning with the effective date of termination").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a better version of an amendment which it was not realistically possible to move and debate at Report stage. In Committee, Clause 13 was much improved by addition of the requirement for an employer to have notified the employee properly before the employer can seek the benefit of the new section to be inserted in the principal Act which allows for reduction of a compensatory award. This amendment is concerned with the circumstances in which it could be said that the dismissed employee has failed to appeal under internal procedures.
In some more sophisticated organisations there is more than one level of appeal. So an employee may be caught by the new provision if he or she appeals only to one level and does not then go on to exercise a right of further appeal internally.
Similarly, in some organisations the appeal procedure is more time-consuming and more formal than in others. Some internal appeals (including the Civil Service Appeal Board) are not completed until after expiry of the three months from dismissal allowed for applications to the tribunal. Employees can be caught out because they do not realise that the time limit is three months starting from the dismissal, or that operating an internal
1038
appeal after dismissal does not stop the clock. They can find that the internal appeal process has not been completed before it is too late to apply to the tribunal within the primary limitation period.
It is only the well-advised employee, following dismissal, who gives notice of internal appeal at the same time as launching tribunal proceedings to ensure that he or she is not caught out by the statutory time limit if the internal appeal is unsuccessful. Those without advice or without good advice can miss the boat by using up their three months in pursuing internal appeals, or they may apply straight to the tribunal, believing that appealing internally to unsympathetic senior management will not be worth while.
The amendment seeks to encourage the hearing and the determination of internal appeals within a reasonable time. That is desirable in itself for several reasons: first, because internal appeals can and sometimes do hold up tribunal proceedings; secondly, because evidence given at a properly conducted internal appeal is usually much fresher in everyone's minds than at a tribunal hearing months or even years later; thirdly, because the outcome of the appeal may remove the need for a tribunal hearing altogether or limit its use. It is also desirable, in the context of the new clause and the power to discount. So long as there is a relatively short period of three months to start tribunal proceedings—and now that is to be coupled with the risk of a discount—the internal appeal or appeals procedure should be prompt and should be completed in two months. That gives the employee a margin of a further month to consider whether to take the matter further, without having to depend on the discretion of the tribunal to allow an application out of time.
I should say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for drawing my attention to the decision of the employment appeal tribunal in 1995 in the case of W.A. Goold (Pearmak) Limited v. McConnell. The decision was that it is an implied term of a contract of employment that the employers will reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to their employees to obtain redress of any grievance. That case concerned grievance procedures during the employment rather than appeal procedures after employment has been terminated. However, I am sure that an analogous implied term exists. In a sense, what I seek to do in this amendment is to put it on a limited statutory basis, with specific reference to the tribunal time limits. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I merely wish to add a sentence to what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said in relation to the decision in 1995 on the employment appeal tribunal. Some might feel that the amendment added an unbearable burden for the employer in providing grievance procedures. It was in that respect that I ventured to draw the noble Lord's attention to the decision because we already start from a base where the employment appeal tribunal has decided that it is an implied term of the contract of employment that the employer should give proper grievance procedures to

1039
the employee. In a sense, that is not hostile to the amendment. On the contrary, it shows that the amendment is evolutionary rather than what might be felt by the Minister to be unfortunately revolutionary.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may at the outset express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his self-denying ordinance at Report stage in not moving the amendment which then stood in his name. He took that course because we were being pressed to conclude our debates on the Bill so that the House could proceed with other business.
I have much sympathy with the point that the noble Lord seeks to make. There is indeed a danger that some employers may drag their feet over the internal appeals procedure. It is important that internal appeals should be dealt with as soon after the initial cause of complaint as possible. In any event, it should be before the dispute has had time to fester and before any possibility of reinstatement is passed.
I appreciate the danger that an employee who is using the internal procedure may lose sight of the need to lodge his appeal with the tribunal within the time limit. Of course, an employee is fully entitled to submit his application to the tribunal, as the noble Lord said, within the time limit, notwithstanding that the internal appeal is proceeding. The necessary arrangements may be made to ensure that the tribunal hearing is not listed prematurely. But the noble Lord is right, the employee may not be aware of that.
However, as I think the noble Lord recognises, the amendment which he proposes does not really address the problem. The question of whether the award is to be reduced arises only if the employee appeals to the tribunal, and does so within the time limit. Conversely, the question of reduction in compensation will arise only if the employee fails to appeal by way of internal procedure.
Having said that, I believe that the noble Lord disclosed a real problem. The question then arises as to how it should be addressed. It is difficult, by legislation, to ensure that people know their rights. The best way to achieve that is to encourage them to seek appropriate advice. As we all know, advice is available from ACAS, from CABs, from trade unions and from law centres. I hope that anything which can be done to bring that to the attention of litigants will be done whether the litigants are employees or perhaps employers who do not have the advantage of a personnel department.
Beyond that, can something be done to impose statutory time limits on internal dismissal procedures? I am grateful for the reference made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and to which he was kind enough to refer me. But I fear that if we are looking for a statutory answer, the reply is not in this Bill. The relationship between internal procedures and statutory appeals is a complicated one in any event. I understand that the Government take the view that any changes would require detailed consultation and consideration. I appreciate the reasons for that, although my noble friend Lord Haskel may have something to say on the matter in a moment.
1040
Your Lordships may recollect that at Second Reading I indicated that while I would be happy to consider amendments I would feel inhibited in introducing major revisions in the absence of appropriate consultation. But I join the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in suggesting that the Government may consider initiating such consultations. If my noble friend Lord Haskel feels able to assist us on that, I am sure we shall all be grateful. That is the best I can do.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I repeat the gratitude expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer to the noble Lord. Lord Meston, for the manner in which he dealt with his amendments on Report. We are concerned that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would discourage parties from using the fair procedure. That is why we feel initially that we are unable to support the amendment. Our intention is that Clause 13 should encourage parties to disputes to make use of internal appeal procedures. It seems likely that it would take more than two months to conclude them. We firmly believe that, where possible, parties should resolve their disputes voluntarily between themselves rather than by recourse to a third party or to a tribunal.
Like my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, I understand the intention behind the amendment and indeed we are sympathetic to it. The Government acknowledge that there might be a problem if an employee thought that the time limit started running only once an internal procedure had been completed. The information in guidance provided by the DTI, the employment tribunal service and ACAS makes it clear that the time limit starts running from the effective date of the termination. Although we wish to encourage parties to use internal appeal procedures, an employee who is concerned about falling foul of the time limit can always make an application to the tribunal and ask that it be stayed until the outcome of the appeal. That is perfectly normal practice and tribunals are well used to dealing with such requests. That puts a certain amount of power in the hands of the employee.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer suggested that the Government may be reluctant to make complicated changes to time limits without extensive consultation. He is right. That is because the issue is more complex than might at first appear. While it is normally relatively simple to determine the effective date of termination, determining the date on which an internal procedure is concluded is by no means straightforward. For example, there might be disputes as to whether the internal appeal had been properly commenced or taken forward. It is also not clear what the status of dismissed employees would be during the appeal. Would they remain as employees, in effect on suspension; and if so, would they be entitled to pay? The Government would need to address those questions and consult with employers and employees before considering whether it would be feasible to make any changes to the well established way in which the time limit works.

1041
I would therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to withdraw his amendment, but I can assure him that the Government have taken note of the very important point he makes.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful for the response I have had and I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for his assistance, although I cannot help feeling that he may have handed me a somewhat two edged sword. However, he is right in suggesting elegantly that what I sought to do was evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
I do not for a moment accept that the proposal in the amendment would impose a serious burden on employers. Nor do I accept that it would in any way discourage the use of internal appeals. It is designed, if it is designed to do anything, to encourage employers to provide internal appeals and to make sure that everyone gets on with it. It is certainly not intended to impose, and I do not accept for a moment that it has the effect of imposing, a statutory time limit on internal procedures or a major revision of the substantive time limit in the principal Act. All it says is that, if the employer is to have the benefit of seeking a reduction of the compensatory award as provided under the Bill, he can have that benefit only if he has ensured that the internal appeal is completed within a reasonable time limit of two months. I do not accept that it is in any way impossible or difficult to have the appeal dealt with within that time limit, particularly if the employee himself is required to make his application to the tribunal within three months.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the whole question of effective date of termination can be complicated. But if one is looking at this in its context of the award of compensation at the end of the hearing, surely by then at least one would hope that it would be perfectly clear when the effective date of termination was. If it was not clear by then, I would suggest that the tribunal or arbitrator had failed to focus on the factual issues in the case.
I am grateful for the indications given by the Government and would not dream of pressing the amendment at this late stage. However, I do hope that further thought can be given to the point before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 13. line 42, leave out second ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 14 to 20, 22 and 23. It would certainly be in the interests of expedition.
These are technical amendments but they are significant nonetheless. They are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Bill relating to the definition of qualified lawyers are consistent with the definition in other statutes. Your Lordships will recollect that advice from a qualified lawyer is a necessary condition for
1042
exercising certain rights under the Bill. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 altered the position in England and Wales by creating two new categories of authorised advocate and authorised litigator and allowed for the possibility of authorised bodies other than the Bar Council and Law Society to grant rights of audience in the court and rights to conduct litigation.
This has not mattered in practice until recently because the only bodies authorised to grant such rights to their members have been the Bar Council and the Law Society. The only authorised advocates or litigators have been barristers or solicitors. But I understand that several weeks ago my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and senior judges approved an application from the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) to become an authorised body for the purpose of granting their members rights of audience before certain courts and tribunals. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this new class of authorised advocates should be able to provide advice on compromise agreements. It is therefore necessary for the provisions relating to compromise agreements in the Bill to be amended accordingly. My amendment provides that authorised advocates or authorised litigators, for the purpose of the Courts and Legal Services Act, will qualify as independent advisers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 20:
Page 13, line 43, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 14, line 40, leave out second ("or").
Page 14, line 41, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 16, line 17, leave out second ("or").
Page 16, line 18, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 17, line 11, leave out second ("or").
Page 17, line 12, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 17. line 37, leave out from ("alone),") to end of line 38 and insert ("for the words front ", in such circumstances" to "tribunal may" substitute "any act which is required or authorised by the regulations to he done by an employment tribunal and is of a description specified by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection may".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 19, line 42, leave out second ("or").
Page 19, line 43, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
On Question, amendments agreed to. Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 20, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 4(3)(f), apart from the word "and".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 25:
Line 7, leave out ("avoiding double recovery in") and insert ("about").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to change the Long Title of the Bill to reflect changes made to the Bill at Report stage. I am available if your Lordships wish to press me further on the reasons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
There is much to be said in some circumstances for introducing a Bill in your Lordships' House. The other place has much to occupy its time and attention. Its debates frequently concern broad issues of policy and while they can certainly on occasions address matters of detail with a formidable degree of expertise, there are some proposals which, if they have to await the attention of a committee in another place, may suffer some delay before they reach the statute book.
A Bill that does not aspire to change the course of history but simply to oil the existing wheels may come first before your Lordships' House and be assured of a careful scrutiny by those whose experience and expertise should enable the other place to feel confidence. Little is likely to have slipped through the net by oversight.
Even before it was presented, this Bill was the outcome of extensive consultation. In your Lordships' House it received a general welcome, but it did not escape controversy over some of the detail and indeed that happened tonight. The controversy arose because in this world it is not always possible in any decision to achieve a balance which affords all the advantages and none of the price tags.
Inevitably, we are dealing with a proper balance between conflicting objectives, both within your Lordships' House and among those outside with interests to promote and views to express. There were those who placed a greater value on some objectives
1044
than others. The political process consists largely not of reconciling objectives if they cannot be reconciled, but in achieving a suitable balance and trying to ensure that no point of view is dismissed without proper consideration. I believe that we have achieved that. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in our debates even though there may have been moments when my gratitude was tempered depending on the particular subject matter we were discussing. I am grateful also to all of your Lordships who have discussed these matters with me outside the Chamber.
I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Haskel for his patience with all of us who might have made his life easier had we been less insistent on our own views. My noble friend mediated between us and the Government. He conveyed our concerns to his fellow Ministers and, where he could not satisfy everyone, I believe that no one was left with a feeling that my noble friend had failed to address his mind to their arguments or failed to explain why the Government were taking the position which was adopted. Perhaps I may add my personal thanks to my noble friend's officials who spent long periods with me, explaining what options were open and mediating between the various groups who were writing to us.
I hope that the many associations outside Parliament which wrote to me will forgive me that I was not able to avail myself of all of their suggestions. That does not reduce my gratitude for the considered advice which they tendered.
Employment law is never static. There may well be future changes to meet some of the points raised in our debates which we were not able to incorporate in the Bill. I am in the privileged position of being consulted in advance about changes in procedural regulations affecting tribunals. I shall await with interest some of the regulations following the powers which we have been discussing in this Bill.
We have not resolved every question which exercises practitioners in this area, but I believe that our efforts were worth while and that they may benefit not only practitioners, not only those who administer tribunals, but many employers and employees who may never even learn of our debates. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Archer of Sandwell.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, on behalf of some of my noble friends I should like to thank, first, the Minister for his patience and, secondly, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. Even when he was wrong, he maintained a stout and firm bat against all the bowling that we could bring to bear.
There are some good things in this Bill—I should say that there are a lot of good things in it because from our Benches we have tended only to criticise it. Indeed, where the Bill is good, it is very good, but where it is bad, it is very, very bad indeed.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell

1045
on bringing forward this Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill, and to thank him for his considerable efforts during the progress of the Bill. He has been a tower of strength, as we must all acknowledge.
As I have emphasised on a number of occasions, we shall continue to maintain a consultative approach when we come to prepare the implementing regulations. The ACAS arbitration scheme has attracted a great deal of interest and, I detect, some concern. As your Lordships know, the ACAS Council is a tripartite body, comprising representatives of employers, employees and
1046
independents, independent of government. Its members have a wealth of experience in the area of arbitration. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will have heard the points made in the debates and will take note of them in drawing up their proposals for a scheme.
The Government trust that the Bill will gain the support that it deserves from your Lordships' House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in our debates.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons. House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work: Review
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work: Review
  EU Public Health Issues
  EU Public Health Issues
  Advisory Committees: Members' Interests
  Advisory Committees: Members' Interests
  Millennium Dome Costs: Sponsors
  Millennium Dome Costs: Sponsors
  Children's Radio Services
  Children's Radio Services
  Legal Deposit of Publications
  Legal Deposit of Publications
  Treasury Press Briefings
  Treasury Press Briefings
  Access to Museums and Galleries
  Access to Museums and Galleries
  Civil Jury Trials in Scotland
  Civil Jury Trials in Scotland
  Organophosphates: Interdepartmental Monitoring Group
  Organophosphates: Interdepartmental Monitoring Group
  Sand Eels
  Sand Eels
  Lottery Draws: Restriction
  Lottery Draws: Restriction