Sitting of 15 January 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Windfall Tax
    Mr. Coaker: What representations he has received on his policy to spend the proceeds of the windfall tax on a welfare-to-work programme. [21051]
    Mr. Plaskitt: What representations he has received from employees' representatives on his policy to spend the proceeds of the windfall tax on a welfare-to-work programme. [21065]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I am pleased to tell the House that we have had widespread positive acceptance of our welfare-to-work programme from employers, from employees and their representatives and throughout the voluntary sector. In particular, I am most encouraged by the firm support of British industry. I am pleased to say that many Members of the House are acting as positive ambassadors for the programme, and that is having a very good effect locally.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm that the many positive replies that we have had on the welfare-to-work programme include those from employers in my constituency in the Greater Nottingham area, such as Boots, Experian and East Midlands Electricity? Can he also confirm that not only big employers but many ordinary people are pleased to have a Government determined to tackle unemployment and the scourges of social exclusion and poverty that it brings with it?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree with my hon. Friend on all those specific points. The three companies that he mentioned—East Midlands Electricity, Experian and Boots—are all active in his area, which, as he is aware, with 4,000 new dealers passing through the programme in the first year, is the biggest in the east midlands. We are very encouraged by the work that is being done there
    468
    and by the initial response to the pathfinder programme, which is not operating in his area but which, I am pleased to tell the House, is off to a flying start.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I also welcome the introduction of the welfare-to-work scheme in the pilot areas. However, looking forward to the time when the scheme goes nationwide, can my hon. Friend confirm that many substantial employers in my constituency, Warwick and Leamington, have expressed a commitment to participate in the scheme, and that their involvement will be vital to bring opportunities for work and training to the many young unemployed people in my constituency?
    Mr. Robinson: Again, I can agree with all that. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in particular, Ford and Christian Salvesen are very active in the programme in his local area and I am sure that when it gets under way in April 1998, when we roll out the programme nationwide, he will rapidly become aware of considerable benefits accruing from that to those who have previously been denied the opportunity to work. One of the most positive aspects of the pathfinders is that the new dealers are responding extremely well, and especially those given a personal adviser.
    Mr. Forth: Given that unemployment has now been falling for about five years and is at an all-time low, at least in living memory, and given that the numbers of both the long-term unemployed and the young unemployed have been falling dramatically and continue to fall, why does not the hon. Gentleman review this ridiculous gesture programme, which is costing so much money, and give the money back to, for example, the pensioners who have been mugged by his Department?
    Mr. Robinson: I think the whole House and the country—and perhaps, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman—will be dismayed at the terms in which he tried to dismiss this very important initiative. It is true that young unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds are fewer than they were. It is also true, however, that many are still coming on to the programme, and will be coming on to the programme, who have been out of work for six months or more, and we, as a Government—unlike the Conservatives when in government—intend to do something about it.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that in some parts of the country there is a growing labour shortage, especially of young people, and that there is some impatience that the resources of the welfare-to-work programme cannot be redeployed more quickly for older workers who have been out of work for a long time?
    Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, within the welfare-to-work programme £350 million has been put to one side for those who have been out of work long term, and that will have good effect. We also have a separate skills shortage programme to put that problem right.
    Mr. Blizzard: May I say how welcome the new deal scheme is in my constituency of Waveney? In answer to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the virtue of the scheme is that, by its very

    469
    nature, it involves precise targeting. In my constituency, there are pockets of unemployment within a relatively prosperous area and the scheme will attack those pockets. The unemployed in those areas will benefit most from the scheme because it directs resources where they are needed most. My constituents are looking forward to the scheme getting under way in April and preparations for it are well advanced. Does my hon. Friend agree that this policy proves the Government's commitment to social justice and economic efficiency?
    Mr. Robinson: Indeed. It is a £3½ billion project that will last for four years—unlike some of the tinpot schemes that were dreamt up by the Conservatives when they were in government. My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that the gateway programme targets specifically particular pockets of unemployment in otherwise relatively prosperous areas. That is one of the scheme's innovations that will make it a success.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: How can the Paymaster General plausibly promote a welfare-to-work programme that involves cutting welfare to the poorest people and raising taxes for ordinary savers while, at the same time, he is dodging taxes through the use of an offshore trust that he now admits that he controls? If the Paymaster General wants to retain a shred of credibility for himself and the programme, he should belatedly make a full disclosure about how his welfare is being looked after and how his windfall is being protected by the use of an offshore tax-avoiding trust, which the Labour party said before the election that it was committed to removing.
    Mr. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to hide the fact that the Tory party opposed the money and voted against the programme. I am pleased to say that many Opposition Members are now taking a positive interest in the programme and are playing a positive role. However, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to hide the fact that he voted against the measure. While the Opposition will the end, they refuse to vote the means.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister agree that the welfare-to-work programme not only tackles poverty but, by expanding the available work force, increases the capacity of the economy and will play a very important role in tackling inflation in a much more positive and beneficial way than by raising interest rates, for example?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The welfare-to-work programme will play a particularly important role in Wales. As to the question of skills shortages and the tightening of the labour market generally, all sectors of British industry firmly support the programme because they have begun to see that it could be the smart way of easing existing skills shortages.

    High-technology Industries
    Mr. Garnier: What is his policy on providing financial support to high-technology industries. [21052]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The essential policies for high-technology firms are those that promote stability and prevent stop-go. In addition, in order to encourage investment, we have
    470
    reduced the corporation tax rate for businesses from 33p to 31p. We propose to reduce corporation tax to 30p in 1999. We have produced a small and medium business tax relief by doubling capital allowances and we are reviewing capital gains tax. Dr. Keith McCullagh and senior figures from high-tech companies are also producing a report about how to stimulate high-tech investment, especially in research and development-based firms.
    Mr. Garnier: Do the Chancellor and his Treasury team plan to assist high-tech industries by exempting them from capital gains tax on share issues? Is that not precisely what the Paymaster General managed to do by transferring £10 million-worth of shares to do with his high-tech company into his offshore trust? Why should the Treasury team, which contains a Minister who seems intent on avoiding tax, be so keen to impress upon other lesser mortals that they should pay every penny of tax?
    Mr. Brown: I might have known that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not at all interested in high-technology firms. The Conservative party should start talking to businesses that have welcomed the cut in corporation tax from 33p to 31p—the lowest rate of corporation tax in our history. They have also welcomed the fact that we plan to cut corporation tax to 30p and that we are reviewing capital gains tax. It is a measure of the Government's success that we have persuaded senior figures from the high-technology industries to come together in a working party that will report soon, with a view to the Budget, on how we can help specifically some of the most modern, high-technology firms in our country.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many high-tech companies spin out of universities and university research? Is there a way in which he could introduce a tax break for companies and individuals who give back to universities specifically for high-tech innovation? We in Britain—individuals as well as big corporations in the private sector—are small givers to universities, and that could be a new form of resource.
    Mr. Brown: We have already made available for small and medium companies, including those that have spun off from universities, an enhanced capital investment tax relief that they can use in this financial year to expand their investment. In addition to that, by cutting corporation tax we are creating the environment in which long-term investment can take place. For university-based and other firms, the McCullagh committee is looking at how we can increase the venture capital industry's input into investment in these areas.
    We are struck by the fact that there is 40 per cent. more investment of the national income in high-technology firms in the United States than in Britain—£4.5 billion is invested in high-technology companies there, and only one tenth of that in this country. That situation was not rectified under the previous Government, but we hope to rectify it.

    Tax Avoidance
    Mr. Letwin: What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on tax avoidance issues. [21053]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: On 1 December 1997 the ECOFIN group of Finance Ministers agreed a code of

    471
    conduct on business taxation. The code of conduct is aimed at eliminating special business tax regime loopholes, and we are working closely with our European partners and have persuaded the Commission to adopt a more rigorous and thorough application of the state aid rules in this area. In relation to multinational companies, we will keep our European partners, the G7 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in touch with our discussion on how we modernise the tax rules on transfer pricing for multinationals and the existence of controlled foreign companies. We are publishing our proposals in these areas.
    Mr. Letwin: I thank the Chancellor for that illuminating reply. In the light of the helpful comments that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made to European Standing Committee B, when she told us that
    "Countries engage in unfair competition when they adopt zero or near-zero tax rates for special niche areas"—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 26 November 1997; c. 2.],
    would the Chancellor class the Paymaster General as a special niche area?
    Mr. Brown: Again, it is a measure of the modern Conservative party that Conservative Members cannot now even address the issues of Europe and taxation without reducing them to trivia.
    We made an important breakthrough in December in dealing with harmful tax competition. We persuaded other countries, which had been reluctant to support those measures, to support them. We are tackling the problem of multinationals and transfer pricing in a way that the previous Government never did. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the measures that we are taking in all those areas.
    Mr. Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's measures are tough and are in the country's interests, and that it is a bit rich for Conservative Members to come out with all that criticism now, when they did nothing about the situation for 18 years?
    Mr. Brown: Yes. We took measures in the first Budget to close a number of tax loopholes. We have done what the previous Government failed to do, and by doing so have raised more than £1.5 billion for the Treasury. Conservative Members who raise questions about these matters now seem to support taking action in areas where, when they were in government, they took no significant action for 18 years.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can the Chancellor give the House an assurance, following his meetings at ECOFIN and with his counterparts in other forums, that the European Union will not require the United Kingdom to extend the scope of value added tax, and that he will effectively prevent any such extension?
    Mr. Brown: We have made it absolutely clear that these are matters for vetoes and for the House.

    Exports
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What representations he has received from manufacturing industry about the effect on exports of the value of sterling. [21054]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Treasury Ministers receive numerous representations from business on a wide range of issues, including the impact of the strength of sterling. The Government are committed to open discussion of our economic performance with a view to achieving a shared sense of economic purpose. We take seriously the views that have been made available to us.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is she aware that in my constituency of Pendle, 44 per cent. of employees work in manufacturing industry, as against a national average of about 19 per cent., and there are real concerns about the appreciation of sterling against other currencies? In the past year, the pound sterling has risen by 21 per cent. against the deutschmark, 16 per cent. against the yen, 16 per cent. against the ecu and 5 per cent. against the American dollar. Firms are cutting prices and profit margins just to maintain market share, and that cannot continue indefinitely. Can my hon. Friend give manufacturing industry any encouragement that matters will improve in the short term?
    Mrs. Liddell: I take on board my hon. Friend's point about the difficulties being experienced in his constituency, but the CBI and British Chambers of Commerce have pointed to manufacturing industry's strong performance throughout the north-west. I welcome the fact that throughout the north-west firms are performing strongly in a range of industries, including chemicals, pharmaceuticals and food and drink. But it is important to ensure that companies face macro-economic stability so that they can plan ahead for the future, and since the Government were elected on 1 May our policies have been designed to provide the kind of economic climate that allows manufacturing industries to be competitive and to plan ahead for the future.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Economic Secretary agree that the current strength of sterling is the forgotten factor in the Government's economic and particularly monetary policy? Does she agree with the old City maxim that a 10 per cent. appreciation of the pound is equivalent to an increase of about 1 per cent. in interest rates? Will not this excessively tight monetary policy lead to one of the lowest growth rates in the European Community in two years' time? The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has calculated that we will have a growth rate of about 2 per cent. in two years' time, which will be the lowest of all 15 member states of the EU, in contrast with one of the highest growth rates under the previous Government's economic management.
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman seems committed to trying to return Britain to the kind of stop-go, boom and bust economic policies of the previous Government—a Government who made sure that this Government inherited an economy with an inflation problem. The most sensible course of action for this economy is to obtain the climate of stability that the Government seek to achieve. We are conscious of the many pressures on manufacturing industry, and the hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish if he suggests that our attitude to sterling is to make it a forgotten problem.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that since the Dublin Government announced three months ago that

    473
    they would join the euro, the punt in southern Ireland has declined by 20 per cent. against sterling which operates in Northern Ireland, and that that is now a major barrier to trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Will the Government, in their role as President of the European Finance Ministers and in the context of the joint statement by both Governments on Monday on the creation of a council of the various devolved assemblies and Governments within these islands so that we can act in co-operation, approach the Dublin Government to see whether it would be possible for the pound sterling to join the euro at the same time as the Republic of Ireland?
    Mrs. Liddell: The UK Government's responsibility, in their role as President of the EU, is to be open and fair in the negotiations that will take place during the next few months. Those are critical negotiations for the future of the EU and its economies. In that setting, it is appropriate to pay tribute to the extent to which the EU is contributing to the process of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
    I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall discharge our responsibilities, as part of the presidency, with fairness and justice, and shall take into account the difficulties that different countries experience. However, when the Council of Finance Ministers meets to discuss those matters it must take into account the overall impact on all the economies of the European Union, both individually and collectively.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear that the high level of the pound and of interest rates is affecting manufacturing industry much more than service industries? Will my hon. Friend therefore consider further assistance to the manufacturing industry?
    Mrs. Liddell: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a differential between the performance of the service sector and the manufacturing sector. Notwithstanding that, official estimates still point to continued growth in exports from the manufacturing sector. We take on board the point that my right hon. Friend makes about assistance to manufacturing industry. Indeed, the Minister for Trade has already established arrangements to assist companies in their marketing operations abroad. We have also embarked on a research programme to find the means whereby we can encourage especially small and medium enterprises to promote exports abroad and we shall continue to look closely at the matter to ensure that we create the most propitious circumstances for our manufacturing industry throughout the United Kingdom.

    Research Grants
    Mr. Woodward: What plans he has to impose VAT on research grants by charitable trusts; and if he will make a statement. [21055]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): There are no plans to impose VAT on research grants made by charitable trusts.
    Mr. Woodward: I declare an interest in this subject. In the wake of the report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which says that the impact of
    474
    the Government's Budget will be to impose on charities an additional £350 million because of the changes to advance corporation tax, will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out definitively an attempt by Customs and Excise to impose VAT on research grants for scientific purposes?
    Dawn Primarolo: I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that VAT on research grants will not be imposed on charitable trusts. With regard to the ACT changes, which the Government made on the basis of economic and long-term planning, the Chancellor recognised the special position of charities and transitional arrangements were put in place—a total of £1 billion will be spent over seven years on that issue. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not go on to mention, given his commitment and involvement in charities, the Government's review of charities taxation, which is widely welcomed by all concerned in the charitable sector. When I was at the annual general meeting yesterday of the charitable taxation reform group, we had a positive discussion about the future of charities.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Bayley: What his priorities are for job creation at the ECOFIN meeting in York during the UK presidency. [21056]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: I look forward to holding the informal ECOFIN in my hon. Friend's constituency in two months' time. I shall use the UK's presidency of the European Union to advance policies that help the unemployed to find work, ensure that we have a skilled, adaptable labour force and increase flexibility and adaptability in the labour market, to which we are committed, thereby raising the sustainable level of employment in Britain and Europe. I expect to discuss those issues at several ECOFIN meetings during the course of the next few months.
    Mr. Bayley: Just over a year ago, R. R. Donnelley, which has a large print works in my constituency employing several hundred people, was teetering on the brink of closure. It has now secured a contract to print all the telephone directories for the Netherlands for the next seven years and those jobs have been secured. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that experience shows that Britain benefits from involvement in the European Union? Will he be using our presidency further to ensure that we play a full part in Europe so that this country benefits from jobs from that source?
    Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Sixty per cent. of our trade is with European Union countries: both imports and exports. We are trying to expand the single market into areas where it has not been effective in the past: not just telephone directories, but telecommunications and the energy and utilities industries. I hope that we shall make advances during the European presidency. It would, of course, be better if we had the support of the Conservative party.
    Sir Michael Spicer: If the Government are really serious about giving advice at ECOFIN on reducing unemployment in European Union countries, will they tell

    475
    the French Government to uncouple their currency from the deutschmark, even if that means getting out of the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Brown: We have already discussed joint measures to tackle unemployment throughout Europe. At the Luxembourg summit in November, British proposals to help young people who have been unemployed for more than six months and long-term unemployed men and women who have been unemployed for more than a year throughout Europe—exactly the policies that we are pursuing in Britain—commended themselves to our European partners. Those measures will create job opportunities and give people the skills that will be effective in reducing the unacceptably high level of unemployment in Europe. Britain is leading the way in those areas.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Timms: What representations he has received about the steps he is taking to prepare business for EMU. [21057]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: We received a large number of representations as a result of our decision in October on economic and monetary union. We have set up a business advisory committee, and a Treasury committee is examining the preparations for EMU. The president of the Confederation of British Industry, the Governor of the Bank of England and the president of the chambers of commerce are involved in discussions on these matters. This country is committed to making those preparations now.
    Mr. Timms: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it would be wholly contrary to the British national interest for this Government or any future British Government to rule out for ever taking part in the single European currency? That is what Mr. Michael Portillo proposed yesterday, and he was apparently reflecting the views of many Conservative Members.
    Mr. Brown: There are two positions that can be understood and are credible, and neither of them is held by the Conservative party. The first is to support the principle of monetary union, and the second is to oppose it. This side, supported by Lord Howe and many others, supports the principle of monetary union, whereas the other side cannot tell us what it supports. At least we now know what Mr. Portillo supports: he is totally against the principle.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Chancellor tell us what he would support if there were a conflict, perhaps in the near future, between the needs of monetary policy in this country and the need for a sensible and competitive exchange rate? Which need would come first for him?
    Mr. Brown: The steps that we are taking are right for Britain. The tests of economic and monetary union that I set out, and which were contained in a Treasury paper that was put before the House, will be applied by the Government according to what is in the national economic interest. The problem with the Conservative party's
    476
    position is that it cannot tell us whether it would support joining the single currency if that were in the national interest. Even if the economic consequences were entirely beneficial, the Conservative party would probably oppose it.
    Mr. Grocott: The Chancellor's clear statement that our decision on membership of the single currency would be made on the basis of what was in this country's economic interests was derided by Conservative Members. Surely my right hon. Friend's view is self-evident to anyone who has examined this issue from a neutral position, and is shared by most people in this country. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that anyone in the modern Conservative party who takes that view, including senior members such as former Chancellors, former Prime Ministers and former Deputy Prime Ministers, is described by the current Tory leadership as a has-been?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. Lord Howe's letter was signed by many others, including several hon. Members, a former Prime Minister, a former Deputy Prime Minister and a former Chancellor in the last Conservative Government. They said that they
    "support Tony Blair and his colleagues in making the right decisions on the difficult challenges which lie ahead."
    A large number of senior members of the Conservative party support the principle of monetary union and the Government's policy. Mr. Michael Portillo now says that he is totally against it as a matter of principle, and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen cannot tell us whether they are in favour of it or against it in principle: they say that they will wait 10 years before making their decision. That is typical of the utter opportunism of the Conservative Opposition. They were not fit for government, and they are not fit for opposition.

    Taxation
    Mr. Baldry: If he will make a statement on the number of (a) new taxes introduced and (b) increases in tax rates since 1 May. [21058]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): At the election, we made a clear promise not to increase the basic or the top rate of income tax. We have kept that promise and we will continue to keep it.
    We also promised to introduce a new tax—the windfall tax on the privatised utilities. We introduced it and, as a result, we are spending just over £3 billion on the new deal for young people; we are spending £350 million on the new deal for the long-term unemployed; we are spending more than £200 million on the new deal for lone parents; and we are spending £1.3 billion on repairing the fabric of our schools. None of those things would have happened but for the change of Government.
    Mr. Baldry: That is patently not an answer to my question. Anyone listening to it would have assumed that there would be only one new tax and no tax increases. We know that not to be true. There have been some 17 tax increases since the Government came to office, although before the election they sought to give the impression that

    477
    they would not increase the tax burden. Is not the simple truth that, month on month, the tax burden on the people of Britain is increasing under the present Government?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should recall that, during the general election—I should have thought that Opposition Members might remember the general election, as I believe it left something of an impression on them—when those who presented our tax policies were rigorously examined and cross-examined by Conservative Members and by commentators, we made a promise in relation to the top and basic rates of income tax, which we have kept.
    I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not return to the subject of advance corporation tax, as I rather thought he might. I wonder whether he noticed that in 1997 the overall return to pension funds was 16 per cent., whereas in 1996 it was only 10 per cent.
    Jacqui Smith: Has my right hon. Friend found, as I have, that the Government's decision to cut VAT on fuel has been greeted with pleasure by families and by older people, and with some surprise by our constituents who are used to Governments' pledging to keep VAT at the same rate and then increasing it rather than keeping their tax promises as this Government have done?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. Not only did we cut VAT on domestic fuel—in contrast to the actions of the previous Government—which has been greatly appreciated by elderly people in particular, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a £200 million package to help poorer pensioners with their winter fuel bills and, of course, pensioners generally. None of that help would have been possible but for the change of Government last May.
    Mr. Lilley: We might have hoped that the Chancellor himself would answer a question allowing him to defend his breach of a clear promise not to increase taxes in any way at all—the promise given by the Labour party before the election. The Chancellor, however, dodges questions about taxes just as the Paymaster General dodges taxes on his income. How do the Government justify imposing a tax of £5 billion a year on pension funds? How do they justify imposing taxes on those who have saved £50,000? Will they not make the situation worse by imposing an affluence tax on pensioners?
    Does the Chancellor recall telling his predecessor that, before doing anything that would affect pensioners, he should tackle the taxation of offshore trusts?
    Mr. Darling: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I were wondering why the right hon. Gentleman had not asked a supplementary question on Europe, when he might have clarified one or two points for us. For some reason he chose to say absolutely nothing.
    I shall deal with the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The first and, perhaps, most important related to changes in advance corporation tax. We believe that it is for managers, not the tax man, to make investment decisions, and that the distortion in the corporation tax system ought to be removed. That has been widely welcomed by many people. We reduced the
    478
    corporation tax rate to a lower rate than those of any of our major competitors and there is a further reduction to come in 1999.
    On the subject of pension funds, perhaps I may repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). Overall returns to pension funds last year were 16 per cent. and were only 10 per cent. in the year before that. Abolition of payable tax credits on dividends is estimated to have affected average performance last year by about 0.4 per cent. The overall judgment is that pension funds did well last year—in no small part due to the long-term view that the Government are taking. The half-hearted attack on us by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) does not have any weight, especially when one remembers what the Conservative Government did in the last Parliament and the 22 tax rises that they imposed when they had promised not to do any of that.

    Casino Industry
    Mr. Dismore: If he will make a statement concerning the taxation of the casino industry. [21059]
    Dawn Primarolo: The gross gaming yield of a casino is liable to gaming duty.
    Gaming duty is a tiered duty which ranges from 2½ per cent. to 33 1/3 per cent. The duty receipts for 1996–97 from casinos were £79 million.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been no major review of casino taxation for 20 years, since the royal commission? Does she agree that we should try as far as possible to ensure a level playing field between different forms of gambling? If casinos were taxed on the same basis as bookmakers—6.75 per cent. of bets placed, rather than the sliding scale that she mentioned, which is based on bets less winnings—instead of the £79 million that she mentioned for last year, the Exchequer would have recovered £175 million out of total bets of £2.6 billion. Is it not time that we examined the matter to ensure fair play between the casino industry and the country?
    Dawn Primarolo: Gaming duty was introduced on 1 October 1997 after a period of consultation. The tiered rate on casinos is based on the tax set before the new regime to ensure a fair return to the Exchequer. The gross gaming yield is the most efficient way to tax the industry. So far this year, with a quarter to go, £70 million has been raised. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor constantly reviews the relationship of all the taxes to ensure that they are set at a level that is acceptable to the industry and the Exchequer.

    Alcohol and Tobacco Duties
    Mr. Mullin: What recent discussions he has had with other European Community countries regarding the convergence of excise on alcohol and tobacco; and if he will make a statement. [21060]
    Dawn Primarolo: I have had no discussions with representatives of other EU member states regarding the convergence of excise duties on alcohol and tobacco

    479
    products. The mechanism for progressing convergence is through the European Commission's biennial reviews of the minimum rates of excise duties. The reports on the current alcohol and tobacco reviews are overdue.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure that she is—that a vast black market has grown up in cheap booze and tobacco from the continent and that much of it is sold out of front doors and car boots to under-age youths who then cause mayhem in the communities where they live? That black market is also doing tremendous damage to our domestic brewing and tobacco industries. I appreciate that there are no easy answers to the problem, but will my hon. Friend give an assurance—I am not sure that I detected it in her first answer—that the problem is being seriously addressed?
    Dawn Primarolo: I can assure my hon. Friend that in their negotiations in the European Union, the Government continue to press the case in relation to minimum rates of duty on both alcohol and tobacco. In addition, the Government have conducted a review of alcohol and tobacco involving smuggling, cross-border shopping, crime, health and competition. The report of that review will be with me soon. The industry has co-operated with us fully in order to target exactly the sort of measures that my hon. Friend identified.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is that not a typical reaction from this bossy, authoritarian Government—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Be authoritarian, Mrs. Bottomley.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Government are moving hastily to ban tobacco advertising as a knee-jerk reaction, although it is well known that price is a more significant factor than advertising in tobacco consumption. I suggest that the Government take the steps that we set in hand to try to persuade other European countries to increase the price of tobacco rather than ban advertising.
    Dawn Primarolo: This is not a bossy, typical reaction as the right hon. Lady suggests. We are taking a positive step, in partnership with the tobacco and alcohol industries and through the review that has been organised and led by Customs and Excise to tackle the very real problems of smuggling, particularly of tobacco products. The Government continue to negotiate in Europe on the minimum rates. The right hon. Lady is right to say that taxation is a tool in our health policy on tobacco, as is the ban on tobacco advertising.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my hon. Friend aware of the number of jobs in constituencies such as mine that depend on duty-free shopping? What plans does she have to try to secure those jobs in view of what will happen to duty-free shopping?
    Dawn Primarolo: I understand my hon. Friend's point about jobs. Ending duty-free shopping, however, is not solely a decision for our Government. Decisions on duty free require unanimity in the European Union—a unanimity that does not exist at present. The Government's position, therefore, continues to be to support the demands for a review of the impact of the duty-free regime ending in June 1999.

    Savings
    Mr. Syms: What is his policy for increasing saving by individuals. [21061]
    Mr. Darling: This Government's policy is to encourage saving by as many people as possible. As we said in opposition and as we have said in government, it makes sense to encourage as many people as possible to save and make provision for whatever eventuality they think appropriate. To that end, we have ensured that we have the right economic conditions, with low inflation, that will encourage people to save. We have, of course, introduced specific proposals such as the individual savings account.
    Mr. Syms: Will the Minister consider upping the £50,000 limit on the individual savings account, not only because of opposition to the proposal, but because of the real anger that my constituents feel? Their income is being squeezed by a man who is not only the architect of the scheme, but who has £12 million in the Channel Islands avoiding UK taxation.
    Mr. Darling: The Government made it clear when we were in opposition that we would introduce the individual savings account, which extends the principles of tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans, which have been established for a number of years. The House must face the fact that both we and the previous Government have spent just over £1.3 billion a year in tax relief for the schemes. It makes sense to ask what we can do to encourage people who do not save at the moment to do so in future. The objective of the individual savings account is to increase the number of people who save, but who are at present not saving. That is good for them as individuals and good for the country as a whole.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am slightly surprised that this question is not being answered by the Paymaster General. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Treasury official who told the House of Commons Library on 5 January that tax relief on savings, after the introduction of the individual savings account, would be less than would have been available if PEPs and TESSAs had continued?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises two points. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury takes a great deal of interest in everything that happens in the Treasury. Indeed, I can tell any of my ministerial colleagues who read the report of this Question Time that I take a great deal of interest in what they do in their Departments. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that I should choose to deal with a subject about which I have said a great deal both in opposition and in government.
    The Government do not know precisely how much they will spend on tax relief in any particular year because they do not know how many people will take up the option of saving, at the moment with PEPs and TESSAs, and in future with the individual savings account. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we are talking about rebalancing the tax relief that is available so that we encourage people who are not saving at the moment to do so in the future. There are many people who could well afford to save. It must be in their interests,

    481
    as well as in the interests of the whole country, to save. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his party, if not the Conservative party, would join us in supporting an objective that is widely supported in the country.
    Mr. Fallon: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that, on the current gross dividend yield, annual income from £50,000 invested in a UK equities PEP is only £1,420? Instead of punishing middle Britain for saving, will he either scrap the limit or allow people to transfer any surplus into the type of offshore trust that is operated by the taxmaster general?
    Mr. Darling: Yet again Opposition Front Benchers show that they have precious little interest in the cause of promoting saving. As I said, the Government—any Government—have a choice about how to balance the total amount that they are prepared to spend on tax relief to encourage people to save. Our view is that it is far better to use the available money, which will always be finite, to encourage people on middle and lower incomes who are not currently saving and need encouragement to get into the savings culture. That is our objective. I am bound to say that the vast majority of those with an informed opinion, who have sat down and thought about the matter, support the Government's objective, which is to encourage those who are less well off to make provision for themselves.

    Tax Avoidance
    Mr. Spring: What is his policy on tax avoidance. [21063]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: In the July Budget, we took action on the following matters relating to the issue: taxation of dividends on trading assets as trading profits; acceleration of capital allowances by finance leasing; sale and lease-back; transfers of unused past allowances; company purchase schemes; pay-as-you-earn avoidance; on VAT, in relation to the second-hand goods margin scheme, cash accounting schemes, capital goods schemes and insurance premium tax. Those actions will raise £1.5 billion over five years. We are now considering strengthening tax rules on multinationals and all other matters with a view to action in future Budgets.
    Mr. Spring: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in response to his announced policy to abolish PEPs and TESSAs, some important financial journalists suggested to their readers that they might move their investments offshore to avoid tax? As such arrangements are clearly condoned at the highest level of Government, would the Chancellor like to comment on those suggestions and on whether even middle-income savers should take heed of that professional advice?
    Mr. Brown: People would be well advised to be wary of any advice on those issues from the Opposition. The available tax relief on individual savings accounts, PEPs and TESSAs is about £1.3 billion, which is substantial and rising, and we are committed to funds being made available in future Government budgeting. The hon.
    482
    Gentleman should think carefully about the previous Government's record on tax avoidance. We are taking action on tax avoidance; for 18 years, they failed to do so.
    Mr. Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous two questions demonstrate a concerted campaign by the Conservative party on the issue of standards in public life, that that campaign carries no conviction and that the Government will take no lectures from the party that brought us cash for questions in brown paper envelopes?
    Mr. Brown: I shall certainly take no lectures on tackling tax avoidance from Conservative Members. We have already closed loopholes to the tune of £1.5 billion and we are committed to closing loopholes in tax rules for multinationals. We are also taking action on other matters and will report in future Budgets. The problem with Conservative Members is that they have a new found interest in tax avoidance although they never took action to deal with it when they were in government.
    Mr. Lilley: I come back on this because the Chancellor has consistently tried to pretend that the issues raised by the Paymaster General's trust are minor and insignificant. I submit that hypocrisy, conflicts of interest and economy with the truth are not minor matters. When he was in opposition, the Chancellor pursued such matters in respect of people who did not hold ministerial office. Will he stop hiding behind a statement issued on 8 December by the Treasury which both threatened to sue newspapers and claimed—I quote the words of the Paymaster General's solicitors:
    "our client does not influence the decisions of the Orion trust in any way."?
    Subsequently, the Paymaster General has contradicted that and said that he did influence the trust to buy £10 million of shares in his company—his shares—and to buy and subsequently sell at a profit shares in the Coventry City Football Trust. How does the Chancellor reconcile those two statements?
    Mr. Brown: The hypocrisy is people saying that they want to take action on such matters when they refused to do so when they were in government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury and was asked to take action on offshore trusts, he said that
    "it would impose a substantial and unreasonable burden on business."—[Official Report, 11 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 706.]
    That was his action. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] On the particular case of my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, which the right hon. Gentleman persists in raising, first, my hon. Friend has met all the rules that have been demanded of him in the code of ministerial conduct. Secondly, he has followed the advice of the permanent secretary to the Treasury. Thirdly, he has paid taxes in the United Kingdom to the tune of £1.5 million in the past five years. Finally, I am the person in the Treasury who makes the decisions on taxation.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Opposition are in danger of bringing the House into disrepute? We rightly have on our agenda

    483
    a series of questions that are important to the future prosperity of the nation, yet it is clear that the real intent of the Opposition is to contribute not one whit to the discussion on tax evasion—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his question directly and it must concern Government policy and not the activities of the Opposition, for which the Chancellor is not responsible.
    Dr. Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he and the House should be addressing the important issues that the Opposition failed to address for 18 years?
    Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was Financial Secretary and was asked to take action on the taxation of trusts in Bermuda, he said that he would not. That is the reputation of the Opposition for taking action. The difference between them and us is that we are prepared to take the action that is necessary to close down tax avoidance.

    Offshore Trusts
    Mr. Nicholls: If he will make a statement on his policy on tax-free offshore trusts. [21064]
    Mr. Prior: If he will make a statement on the taxation of offshore trusts. [21066]
    Mr. Darling: The tax treatment of offshore trusts is being considered as part of the wide-ranging review of tax that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps the Chief Secretary could tell us what progress has been made on implementing the
    484
    commitment given by the Chancellor at the Labour party conference in 1996 that in future millionaires would not be able to exploit tax relief and offshore tax havens. Even allowing for the fact that bare-faced brazen cheek does not usually march hand in hand with a proper sense of shame, does the right hon. Gentleman sense any unease at having given such a commitment and then sharing the Treasury Bench with someone who was exploiting tax avoidance on a massive scale?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor had greater success at our party conference than the hon. Gentleman had at his a few years ago.
    Unlike the Conservatives, my right hon. Friend took action in his Budget to close tax loopholes. He has made it very clear that there is more action to come.
    Mr. Prior: Given the Government's commitment to closing offshore tax loopholes and their commitment to high standards in public life, would it not be better if the Paymaster General was moved somewhere else?
    Mr. Darling: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I repeat the point that we have made time and again. For 18 years, the previous Government did nothing about closing tax loopholes. When Mr. David Shaw, of fond memory for many of us—even he was asking for something to be done—asked the now shadow Chancellor about the issue, he was told that it would
    "impose a substantial and unreasonable burden on business."—[Official Report, 11 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 706.]
    That is not our view. We have made it abundantly clear that we intend to take appropriate action to close loopholes. We took action in the Budget and, as I said a few moments ago, there is more to come.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of House to give next week's business—and, I hope, probably the week after's?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 19 JANUARY—Completion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 20 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee on the Government of Wales Bill (First Day).
WEDNESDAY 21 JANUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Second Day).
THURSDAY 22 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Bank of England Bill.
FRIDAY 23 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 26 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Third Day).
TUESDAY 27 JANUARY—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion or Opposition motions. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (First Day).
THURSDAY 29 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Second Day).
FRIDAY 30 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that, following discussions through the usual channels, it has been agreed to increase to 10 minutes the time allocated to my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio to answer oral questions on the millennium experience. The change will be effective from Monday 9 February and requires a slight alteration to the current questions rota. The Departments and individuals involved have been notified. The Table Office has also been notified of the changes and a revised order of questions will be issued as soon as possible.
The Session up to the Easter break will be extremely heavy. I shall continue to try to give two weeks' notice of business, but that may not always be possible. I hope that the programme for the Scotland Bill, which has already been accepted, and that for the Government of Wales Bill, which I hope will be accepted today, will help. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for her co-operation on that.
Although I cannot yet provide definitive dates for the Easter recess, it will be for the convenience of the House if I say that it will fall in the week after Easter—the week beginning 13 April. I shall give more precise details on another occasion. It will also be of help for the forward
486
planning of hon. Members for me to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to introduce his Budget on Tuesday 17 March.
Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for giving us two weeks' business. It is helpful to the House to hear something about the Easter recess and the date for the Budget at this stage in the year—and of course, we were all extremely excited to hear about the new plans for questioning the Minister without Portfolio.
In the right hon. Lady's statement, the House will have discerned the influence of the work of the Modernisation Select Committee in connection with the programming arrangements made for handling the Scottish devolution Bill on the Floor of the House. As she knows, we oppose the principle of the Bill on constitutional and other grounds, but we welcome the agreement reached on the way in which it should be debated. If the House agrees later today the arrangements for handling the Welsh Assembly Bill, that, too, will be owing in part to the work of the Modernisation Committee, as well as in part to a change of heart.
The influence of the Modernisation Committee could also be seen yesterday when the Minister of Agriculture announced that the Government would subject the legislation on the Food Standards Agency to pre-legislative scrutiny. That is very necessary in such a complex area, and will clarify the Government's plans for, among other things, taxing the food industry to pay for its own policing.
I would be grateful if the right hon. Lady would rule out now the notion that the agency should have its own Select Committee. If that were granted, by analogy we should have to have Select Committees for health and safety, highways, prisons and many other subjects. I think that the existing Select Committee system should be well able to cope with the Food Standards Agency.
There has been welcome progress in some of the areas for which the right hon. Lady is responsible, but alas, rather less progress elsewhere. I therefore ask her to arrange for an early debate on social security and other associated matters, to give the Government an opportunity to make clear the principles about which they are worrying their own Back Benchers, as well as every disability pensioner and single parent group in the country, with the briefing and counter-briefing in the Government's internal welfare wars. We should have a debate so that the House can know which Minister is in the lead. It would also be useful for us all to find out when a means test is not a means test.
Will the right hon. Lady also arrange for an early debate on Welsh affairs so that the Secretary of State for Wales can come to the House to answer the 40 questions that have been tabled on the Welsh referendum count controversy? It is no good Ministers brushing off legitimate concerns by saying that Opposition parties dislike the result of the referendum. Judging by the Welsh press, the people of Wales dislike the Secretary of State's inability to bring transparency to that matter. The people of Wales, and the people of the rest of Britain too, deserve a bit better.
Finally, according to today's edition of The Times the Minister for the Environment is due to announce sweeping changes in planning law in a written answer

487
this afternoon. Yesterday he batted aside questions on the matter, although he could have answered them during the debate on the Regional Development Agencies Bill.
I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that we should have a debate on that matter, given that, sadly, one of her colleagues has again ducked facing the House to be questioned on his plans, preferring yet again to give a private briefing to the press first. I hope that she thinks that that is a serious matter.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her initial comments, especially her praise of the work of the Modernisation Select Committee. I hope that the fact that we are both members of that Committee need not prevent us from being pleased when our proposals are accepted by the House. The programming resolutions that we have been able to put forward with all-party support represent important steps forward. Credit goes to all the Members from all parties who serve on the Committee.
I am also pleased that the right hon. Lady welcomed what we have decided to do about the draft Bill introducing the Food Standards Agency. We can improve the quality of much complex legislation such as that Bill if we have appropriate consultation and on occasions scrutiny by the House.
The proposed system does not involve taxing food for policing; it is a system for improving consumer confidence, and such a move is long overdue.
The right hon. Lady asked for a debate on welfare reform. There will be plenty of opportunities outside this House as well as inside to discuss welfare issues. When we find that the Department of Social Security is spending more than is spent on education, health and law and order put together, yet poverty has increased since 1979, we can all be certain that the previous Government failed to tackle poverty. We must establish the right priorities for that Department, and there will be many occasions on which we can discuss those matters.
In respect of the right hon. Lady's comments on the Welsh referendum, I must point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is answering questions on that this afternoon. She and her colleagues will find that the issue has been totally blown out of proportion and that any problems which existed were minor and would not have affected the result, which was an endorsement of the Government's proposals.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The right hon. Lady does not know. We should have a recount.
.Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the answers that come out this afternoon, he will be better informed on this matter.
As far as planning rules are concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has not ducked facing this House. He has placed in the Library statements he has made, and he has published a consultation document to which hon. Members are welcome to respond.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Madam Speaker, you will be aware that I have persistently raised questions in the House about the maldistribution of national lottery awards, and I once received an apology from the Dispatch Box from the Minister of State in the
488
previous Government for his inability to supply adequate information. I have pressed upon my constituents the need to apply and I have backed them in connection with those awards.
It is therefore disappointing to discover in today's Daily Mirror that north-east Derbyshire, which I represent, is bottom in terms of national lottery awards, receiving £2.78 per head of population, compared with some areas which have received £2,000 per head of population. In those circumstances, could we have a debate on the national lottery which is not just about the changes that have taken place, but which looks back at the funding arrangements so that we can make sure that this disaster does not carry on in the future?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend knows the ways of the House very well and usually finds many opportunities to raise the issues which concern him. He will be aware that questions to the relevant Department take place in this House on Monday. That might be an opportunity for him to ask the Minister.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recognise that some Conservatives want not just a re-run of the Welsh referendum, but a re-run of the general election in Wales? Clearly, they are still smarting from their defeat on both counts.
May I congratulate the right hon. Lady on successfully negotiating good programme motions for the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill? We welcome that, and believe that far more of the business of the House would be improved if sensible discussions took place at an early stage about the way in which Bills are dealt with. I hope that she will confirm that, in future, we will try to agree on a programme where we split a major Bill between Standing Committee and a Committee of the whole House, so that we can make sure that the details are discussed adequately in those forums.
Can the right hon. Lady give a firm assurance that we will have a debate on SI 2959, the beef on the bone ban? The former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), supports the ban, but other Conservative Members appear to support us. Other hon. Members from all Opposition parties support our prayer 590. Can she give an undertaking that we will have a debate on that matter on the Floor of the House as soon as possible?
Finally, on a small point, can the Leader of the House assure us that "The Code of Conduct for Ministers" applies to parliamentary private secretaries as well as to Ministers?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the Modernisation Committee, in which he and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) have played their part. I agree that programme motions can be important and can help the House to secure proper scrutiny of legislation. I also agree that there is a role for splitting Bills between the Floor of the House and a Standing Committee, but each Bill should be considered on its merits, and if we can accommodate the wishes of the House, we shall try to do so.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has asked for further information from the Ministry regarding the order banning

489
beef on the bone. That information will be produced, and then it will be possible to have a debate on the order. I envisage that debate taking place on the Floor of the House before the recess.
There are rules about the behaviour of parliamentary private secretaries and what parts of our proceedings they cannot or should not take part in. They are not as clearly laid down as those for Ministers, because PPSs clearly do not have the same responsibilities.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the exchanges at Treasury questions concerning offshore islands and so forth, can we have a debate next week on the scandalous position whereby Dame Shirley Porter has hidden away a vast amount of her private fortune to avoid paying the £27 million surcharge that has been upheld by a court of law? Not one word of criticism has come from Tory Members over her conduct, and that shows them as the hypocrites that they are. Can the debate take place as early as possible? In view of the court's findings, should not the Government recommend to the Queen that the title, the honour, given to Dame Shirley, be taken away?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will know that collection of the money due from Dame Shirley Porter, and indeed from the other individual involved in the case, is a matter not for the Government but for the city of Westminster and the auditor. There are clear rules regarding any honours that have been awarded and the ways in which they may have to be forfeited.
Sir Sydney Chapman: In view of the intense interest aroused by the Minister of Agriculture's statement to the House yesterday, as instanced by the fact that you, Madam Speaker, understandably could not call all the hon. Members who wanted to question him, can we have a general debate on food safety measures? In the meantime, can the Leader of the House clarify what seems to be the Government's position—that, as a result of what the Minister said yesterday, all matters and authority relating to food safety are now the responsibility, and under the control, of the Department of Health, and not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? If that is not the case, can we have a statement soon to clarify the areas of responsibility of the two Departments?
Mrs. Taylor: There has always been some overlap, especially, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, on nutritional issues. He ought to bear it in mind that, in addition to the full statement yesterday, we are to have a draft Bill, and we envisage some form of parliamentary scrutiny of that Bill. I think that that will be helpful to hon. Members of all parties; it will help to inform any future debate on the precise nature of the legislation that is introduced.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that IBM in America has issued a statement saying that it is very unlikely that computers controlling air traffic will be able to deal with the millennium problem? Although there is a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority saying that that will
490
not affect British transatlantic traffic, it seems an urgent problem that is not being addressed, so will she have an urgent talk with her opposite number in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? The House will want to have those important assurances and to know that our air traffic control system is wholly safe.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important and serious problem, and many aspects of industry in this country and elsewhere are very concerned about the progress of preparations for that event. She will be aware that, before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement to the House about the Government's assistance with the preparations for the change in date. Many of her points have been taken on board and are being considered, not least by the committee that has been established to monitor progress. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service is present and we will ensure that all relevant Ministers are aware of her concerns.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Budget day, 17 March, is a bank holiday in Northern Ireland? Does she feel that that is appropriate?
Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was consulted on whether that date would create any problems, and it was not thought that it would.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in his request for a debate on the unfairness of the lottery pay-outs, in view of the fact that Westminster gets about £2,000 per head whereas north-east Derbyshire, part of which I represent, gets only just over £2 per head. My right hon. Friend plays a role on the Modernisation Committee and she will be aware that a Bill has been introduced this week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to change the oath and prevent Members of Parliament from having to swear allegiance to the Queen and all who sail in her. Will she ensure that the Modernisation Committee considers the Bill, because it has support across the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I have not noticed a great deal of pressure for changing the oath as my hon. Friend suggests, and I and the Prime Minister have made it clear that we have no plans to do so at present. On his point about the lottery, I can only repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—that questions to the relevant Department will take place on Monday. Both my hon. Friends have a great record of persisting on issues in the House and I would not be surprised to find that they are able to raise the issue of lottery grants to their area on many other occasions.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I wish to press the Leader of the House on the issue of 17 March, and I question some of the advice that Ministers get from their advisers. I also wish to press her on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Will the Prime Minister, when he

491
meets the President of the United States, raise the issue of millennium compliance by computers? Figures published recently in the press suggest that the £370 million that the Government have allocated, as announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in December, will be utterly inadequate for the task. The world depends on the leadership of this nation and the United States on the matter.
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add on the subject of the date of the Budget. As I said, discussions took place and advice was sought before that date was agreed. On millennium compliance, I made the position clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in the matter. He will know that the Prime Minister has taken a direct personal interest in developments and is carefully observing how confident we can be about compliance. He has often stressed the need to take all appropriate action on the matter.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: In recognition of the Government's determination to pursue policies that prevent ill health, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to publish a Green Paper on public health? When will that happen, and will a statement be made?
Mrs. Taylor: The Government are committed to publishing a Green Paper on public health and will be ready to do so in the relatively near future. Under this and previous Governments, Green Papers have not always been announced to the House, but that one is especially important, and I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture received a broad measure of support for his proposals for the Food Standards Agency, but he said that funding for the agency had yet to be decided. When the White Paper or a draft Bill are debated, will the Leader of the House urge him to avoid placing extra inspection charges and levies on farmers, who can ill afford them after the 47 per cent. drop in farm incomes?
Mrs. Taylor: I believe that my right hon. Friend and colleagues are well aware of the pressures that exist in that industry. Part of the purpose of publishing the draft Bill and having further consultation is to allow such arguments to be made. However, ultimately it will be in the interests of everyone, including the farming community, if we can improve confidence in British food.
Mr. John Cryer: First, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on electoral reform. We now have the Electoral Reform Commission; we also have the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which deals in part with the way in which Members of the European Parliament are elected. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have strong views on electoral reform, and there are even some supporters of proportional representation—I would not touch it with a bargepole, but there we are.
492
Secondly, I add my support to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked for a debate on the activities of the spivs and fraudsters of Westminster city council.
Mrs. Taylor: Electoral reform was not just touched on during, but was the essence of, our Second Reading debate on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which will return to the Floor of the House before long. The Electoral Reform Commission is embarking on its work and it may be wiser to wait until the outcome is known before we talk about further debates in the House on the principle of the matter.
On local government and the difficulties that Dame Shirley Porter created and faces, I have nothing to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Opposition Members are touchingly grateful for the opportunity for an exhaustive 10-minute internal and external examination of the Minister without Portfolio's affairs; I thank the Leader of the House very much for being so good as to arrange that.
Would the right hon. Lady be good enough to arrange for a debate in which West Sussex Members of Parliament would have the opportunity to challenge the Deputy Prime Minister on the extraordinary—unprecedented—decision that he has taken to overturn examination in public of the West Sussex county council structure plan, thus causing a potential crisis in the shire counties of over-development on a scale never before seen? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to explain the enormous anxieties and concerns of our constituents.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the Minister without Portfolio will be touchingly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments; I do not suppose that he realised he was so popular. I cannot find time for a debate on structure planning in West Sussex in the near future, but that may be an appropriate topic for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Lady will be aware that, as a result of the Government's policies, interest rates have risen on a number of occasions, leading to rises in mortgage interest rates and causing a very significant gap in the amount paid in benefit to people on housing benefit, who, sadly, have to have their mortgage interest paid, and the real rates charged. That is especially so in the case of disabled people, who are now being caused considerable further distress by Labour proposals to cut their benefit. That distress is experienced also by the very many elderly people who are expressing concern about cuts in their benefits.
Therefore, may I reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, and ask for an urgent debate on social security issues? It really is not good enough to say that there will be plenty of opportunity to talk about that outside the House.
Mrs. Taylor: It is strange that the hon. Gentleman is denying that there is any problem in respect of social security—either spending or the fact that some people

493
who need help do not get it. We should all realise, not least from experience of our constituency work, that the social security system is not as comprehensive as it should be, and that it is not always the people who need help the most who get the help they want.
It is unwise of the hon. Gentleman to act in such an alarmist way and frighten people in his constituency or elsewhere about benefits that they might lose when there is no specific proposal of the type that he mentions.
Mr. Phil Willis: In view of today's publication of the Home Affairs Committee's report on police disciplinary and complaints procedures, will the right hon. Lady tell us when the report will be debated on the Floor of the House? Will she draw the Home Secretary's attention to the appalling level of secrecy that has surrounded allegations of sexual abuse and ritual initiation behaviour at Harrogate police station in the early 1990s, which have resulted in a huge financial cost to the North Yorkshire police authority? Can we be assured that the whole issue will be discussed by hon. Members—either in a Select Committee or on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: The Home Affairs Committee report on police complaints procedures, which has just been published, is very important and the Government will study its recommendations carefully. We shall respond to the report in the near future. I am not in a position to say at present whether the report will be debated on the Floor of the House and, if so, upon what time scale—although there is provision for debating some Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House.
I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's specific points about allegations at Harrogate police station to the attention of Home Office Ministers. The hon. Gentleman may wish to try to secure an Adjournment debate or to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in some other way.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the right hon. Lady consider arranging for an early debate on the difficulties that the Government are having meeting their debts? Given the fact that the Government are currently legislating for a private statutory rate of interest and that, when in opposition, the Prime Minister pledged to settle debts within 30 days, will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that there is widespread and varied concern about matters as different as the delay in paying additional payments promised to pensioners, which will now not take place until well after the end of winter; and delayed compensation for confiscated handguns?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman raised that matter during Treasury questions, when it would have been appropriate to do so. I do not think that the picture is as bleak as he suggests. The poorest pensioners who will receive most help with their winter fuel bills will get that money this month. All hon. Members should welcome the Government's move to assist pensioners with their fuel bills.
Mr. Evans: The right hon. Lady has referred already to the conduct of the count of the Welsh referendum. Does she appreciate that the difference between those who
494
voted no and those who voted yes is 0.6 per cent.? Does she appreciate that allegations about breaches of the Representation of the People Act 1989 were made first by members of the Labour party in Caerphilly? Does the right hon. Lady also appreciate the fact that members of her party are calling for an independent inquiry, as is the editor of the Western Mail, which is a pro-devolution newspaper in Wales? Does the right hon. Lady believe that it is fair that the judge and jury in this matter is the Secretary of State for Wales? Many people believe that, if the vote had gone another way, his future would have been in jeopardy.
Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the only way that democracy will be done, and will be seen to be done, in Wales is by establishing an independent inquiry that will examine properly all the problems that have been raised since the referendum? Perhaps an independent inquiry would request a recount of the votes.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate the fact that his side lost the vote and the referendum found in favour of Welsh devolution. I do not think that he has the relevant details. If he were to examine answers to parliamentary questions and the information that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is to place in the Library today, he would find that his allegations cannot be substantiated. In fact, the number of disputed votes amounts to about 320. There is no case for an inquiry into the matter. The chief counting officer, Professor Sunderland, has considered the allegations and rejected the suggestion of any problem whatsoever. The Welsh referendum was won fair and square.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Could the Leader of the House persuade the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, no less, to make a statement to the House on the future of London Underground? Is she aware that the Labour party's manifesto for London made much of the need for a better transport system for London, and that referring to the fare increases and under-investment in the underground system, it stated that Labour would change all that? Is it not the case that fares have increased way above inflation, the problems of commuters have got worse and worse, and there is perpetual inaction on the Government's part?
Mrs. Taylor: There was a great deal of inaction in the past 18 years, which led to the present problems. The hon. Gentleman will know that questions to the relevant Department are being tabled next week, and he may want to pursue the matter in that way. He should recognise that the problems that exist in London Transport have not been created in the past few months.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a developing crisis in the planning regime? She will have heard the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), and she may be aware of the arguments in yesterday's debate on regional development agencies, all of which demonstrated that the arbitrary decisions being made by her ministerial

495
colleagues on planning matters are turning out to be against the interests of the rural communities and the green belt, and are a menace and danger to the way of life that many people have come to cherish. Will the right hon. Lady therefore arrange for an urgent debate on these matters, so that we can have some open government and openness about the iniquitous decisions being made behind everyone's back?
Mrs. Taylor: In the past 18 years there was a presumption in favour of development that caused many problems throughout the country. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that most planning decisions are not made by Ministers. If he has concerns about planning matters, he can respond to the consultation document that the Minister for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), issued today.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: When are we to have a general economic debate on the green Budget, and in particular on the announcement in that Budget that TESSAs and PEPs are to be abolished? Some 750,000 savers, including some with extremely small savings—the smallest in the land—will suddenly have to pay increased tax under the policy devised by the Paymaster General, who has an offshore trust sheltering potentially millions of pounds' worth of tax not paid as a UK taxpayer.
Mrs. Taylor: I have already announced that the next Budget will be on 17 March, which will be an opportunity for all hon. Members to make speeches on the economy.
Mr. Edward Davey: I add my support to the request by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) for a debate on electoral reform, so that the benefits of a preferential proportional electoral system can be explained to hon. Members.
Bearing it in mind that 22 January is National B6 Day, may we have a debate on the Government's proposed restrictions on the sale of vitamin B6? Does the Leader of the House realise that up to 600 health food stores throughout the country could close if the restrictions go through? Many of my constituents do not understand why the Government want to proceed with the restrictions, when people use vitamin B6 to aid their health, and the scientific evidence against it is discredited and highly questionable.
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said about a debate on electoral reform. I must admit that I was not aware that 22 January is National B6 Day. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that it is also the day for Agriculture questions.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady consider an early debate—if not next week, then in the near future—to consider the implications of the apology that was given earlier this week by the Japanese Government for the way in which prisoners of war were treated in the last war? Is she aware that the apology, valuable and sincere though it doubtless was, merely repeated two previous apologies that had been given over the past five years, and that what the veterans want is not simply an apology, which is obviously necessary in the first instance, but proper compensation for their sufferings?
496
The purpose of such a debate would be to make the Japanese Government understand that if they think that the apology is the end of the matter, it is not. Proper compensation should be paid, and the matter should be settled once and for all, before the state visit takes place.
Mrs. Taylor: Many people throughout Britain are still very mindful of the sacrifices that were made during the second world war and the suffering that took place in Japanese prison camps. We all have constituents who well remember those days and we know and understand their concerns. The Japanese Government have now shown understanding of the strong feelings that remain in the United Kingdom about that suffering. The Japanese Prime Minister recently made an official apology not just on his own behalf but on behalf of his Government, and that is why it was different.
Mr. Graham Brady: On 25 November during Foreign Office questions I asked the Foreign Secretary the straight and simple question whether he could explain to me and the House why youth unemployment in Britain has fallen rapidly during the past four years whereas it has risen rapidly in most of our major European competitor countries. He gave what I regard as a flippant response, which was:
"Primarily because the number of young people in Britain has been declining."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 765.]
Believing that to be inaccurate, I followed it up with a written question to the Foreign Office to which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who has recently entered the Chamber, gave an answer which demonstrated that the Foreign Secretary's response to me had been inaccurate. That answer said that, in the Foreign Office's estimate, 30 per cent. of the decline had been due to a decline in the number of young people in the United Kingdom, the remainder being due to economic growth and an increase in the number of people going into higher education.
Realising that there was a clear discrepancy between those two versions, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary before Christmas asking him to say which reflected the Foreign Office's view, and I was concerned to receive a response, again from the Minister of State, dated 5 January, which said that he had replied to a written question and had nothing further to add.
Given the clear statement in "The Code of Conduct for Ministers", which makes it clear that if Ministers give inaccurate information in the House of Commons they should come at their earliest convenience to the House to put that inaccuracy right, will the Leader of the House ask her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to do so?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman raised this matter with the Foreign Secretary during questions on Tuesday, and I do not know the full details or the full responses that he was given. He mentioned that he was talking about estimates and it may be that there is scope for discrepancy there, but of course I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Lady has already answered a couple of requests for a debate on

497
social security and welfare reform with the suggestion that those matters can be debated outside the House. With the Prime Minister spending half of Prime Minister's Question Time refusing to answer questions on welfare reform on the basis that the review is still going on; with a debate having been refused in the House when the Prime Minister is today going out to tell the public what is happening; and when, while he was in Japan, the chairman of his association was out telling us what would be in the reforms—I suspect inaccurately—surely our constituents need us to debate the matters in the House, not to be told that we should be doing it outside.
Mrs. Taylor: I announced that the week after next there will be an Opposition day when it will be open to the Opposition to decide what they wish to debate. If they wish to debate the principles on which we should reform the welfare state, the Government would welcome that, not least because we could then draw attention to the extent to which DSS spending increased enormously while they were in government and yet poverty increased, with an increase in the proportion of families on less than half the national average income, and to the fact that when we came into office 4 million children were living in poverty. We shall be happy to discuss the backdrop against which we need to debate reform of the welfare state because of the failures of the past 18 years.
Mr. Norman Baker: Does the Leader of the House recall that, when she made her announcement about extra time for the Minister without Portfolio, there were jeers from around the House? After months of ministerial silence, he was finally called in to answer one question a month and it now seems that he will be called in to answer two questions a month. Does she recognise the fact that there was a deficit in her announcement today because the Minister without Portfolio has wide responsibility for areas of Government policy and co-ordination outside the millennium dome, and her announcement did not deal with that? He is on 11 Cabinet Committees, and he interferes, with prime ministerial approval, in areas as wide as food safety, energy and minimum pay.
Mr. Skinner: Everything.
Mr. Baker: Quite right. Why do we not have an oral slot for the Minister without Portfolio, so that, like every other Minister, he could be accountable and face questions from Opposition Members as well as from Labour Back Benchers?
Mr. Skinner: We do not want him here every day.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend seems to be in a minority on this occasion. I should like to respond to the popularity of the Minister without Portfolio. He answers questions on matters for which he is most directly responsible. He has no other responsibilities for which he is the lead Minister answerable to this House.

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL
Ordered,
That the Order [9th December] relating to committal of the Government of Wales Bill be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hain.]

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Government of Wales Bill—
1.—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in seven allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the seventh day.
(2) In that Committee the Bill shall be considered in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 29, Schedule 3, Clauses 30 to 73, Schedule 4, Clauses 74 to 104, Schedule 5, Clauses 105 to 108, Schedule 6, Clauses 109 and 110, Schedule 7, Clauses 111 to 117, Schedule 8, Clauses 118 and 119, Schedule 9, Clause 120, Schedule 10, Clause 121, Schedule 11, Clauses 122 to 132, Schedule 12, Clauses 133 to 136, Schedule 13, Clauses 137 to 140, New Clauses, New Schedules, Clauses 141 and 142, Schedule 14, Clauses 143 to 149.

2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second day.

3.—(1) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(2) Notwithstanding the Standing Order, not more than nine other Members shall be nominated by the Speaker to the Business Committee in respect of the Bill.

(3) Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on the Bill may be taken on consideration.

(4) The Business Committee shall report to the House a Resolution as to proceedings in Committee not later than 19th January 1998.

(5) 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);

(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.

499

(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 any 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, the 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. Hain.]

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 3 December].
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 1

  MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"
  Amendment proposed [3 December]: No. 66, in page 1, line 13, after '2', insert '(except paragraph 13)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  4.17 pm
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 67, in page 1, line 13, after '2', insert '(except paragraph 32)'.
  No.68, in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 33)".
  No. 69, in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 26)".
  No. 70 in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 45)".
  No. 71 in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 52)".
  No. 72, in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 53)".
  No. 73, in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 54)".
  No. 75 in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 31)".
  No. 76 in page 1, line 13, after "2", insert "(except paragraph 55)".
  No. 7, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `(except Article 2 paragraph 44)'.
  No. 61, in page 1, line 13, at end insert 'except Article 2(16)'.
  No. 25, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 6)'.
  No. 30, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 12)'.
  No. 31, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 13)'.
  No. 32, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 14)'.
  No. 35, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 21)'.
  No. 37, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 23)'.
  No. 38, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 24)'.
  No. 40, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 26)'.
  No. 41, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 27)'.
  No. 42, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 28)'.
  No. 43, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 29)'.
  No. 45, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 31)'.
  No. 46, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 32)'.
  No. 47, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 33)'.
  No. 48, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 34)'.
  No. 49, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 35)'.
  No. 50, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 36)'.
  No. 57, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 44)'.
  Mr. Tim Collins: I began my speech on this amendment more than six weeks ago, in December, which makes it a rather lengthy speech even by my usual standards, so I shall try not to detain the Committee for too long. However, I should like to complete the point that I was making.
  We were discussing qualified majority voting, and I was advancing the case that those who want a successful Britain in a successful Europe should not want ever greater extension of qualified majority voting. Last night, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), paid me an enormous compliment by saying that I
  "made Baroness Thatcher look like a wet liberal."—[Official Report, 14 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 446.]
  None the less, I want Britain to succeed in Europe, and the amendment will help that to come about.
  Europe must be democratic, but extending qualified majority voting will not entrench democracy. Europe also needs to be open to possible new member states in eastern Europe. It would be wrong for the European Union to become so centralised that it was impossible to admit the countries of central and eastern Europe within a time frame of five to 10 years. The risk of moving down the route of ever greater qualified majority voting is that it would become difficult to bring in those states. It would also increase the quantity of the acquis communautaires to which those states would have to sign up before they could be admitted to the Community. The pace at which the European Union was moving would also increase,
  502
  making it much more difficult for states that were coming from a standing start to catch that train, to pursue the analogy that is constantly used in European debates.
  Let us take a different parallel—that of NATO. Clearly, it would be easier for some eastern European countries to join NATO, although decisions there are taken on a unanimous basis, than it would be for them to join the European Union. That demolishes the traditional argument that extending qualified majority voting makes enlargement easier.
  I shall concentrate the rest of my speech on the third argument—the need for a successful Europe. Europe needs to be competitive. If Europe is to be competitive, not only within its member states and within its own borders but globally, it must be dynamic, lightly regulated and able to help business to succeed in every market on this planet. It will not proceed in that direction if it burdens businesses with ever greater regulation. That is why the contrast that is always drawn between Conservative support for the extension of qualified majority voting in the Single European Act and our opposition to further such extension is inaccurate. We supported the extension of qualified majority voting on the Single European Act because, in order to create the single market, we believed, possibly naively in some instances, but philosophically and overall correctly, that such extension would tear down trade barriers, remove burdens on business and make it easier for businesses to compete.
  No one should suppose that the extensions of qualified majority voting in the Amsterdam treaty and in the Bill will result in less regulation, fewer rules and lower burdens on business. It is clear beyond peradventure that those changes will impose greater burdens on business. No one supposes that the European Commission or other member states are champing at the bit for the opportunity to regulate to have fewer social and environmental burdens: we know that they are seeking to impose more burdens.
  The result of the extension of qualified majority voting provided by the Bill will be a less democratic Europe. Decisions will be taken away from national Parliaments, and will be made by institutions that, at best, lack comprehensibility and, at worst, lack any form of accountability. The great purpose for which the European Community was originally created was to expand a zone of peace and co-operation across Europe. This measure will block the expansion of the European Union, and will be an impediment to competitiveness of European countries and European businesses across global markets.
  I support the amendments, and I hope that they will be passed.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: This group of amendments and, sadly, the next group, will not receive the scrutiny that they deserve. They deal with qualified majority voting, co-decision taking, institutional changes and flexibility. I have asked myself—and perhaps the Committee will think it a useful question to pose—whether the Amsterdam treaty provides a settled constitution for the European Union. How much is left to be done, and what areas are still in an unsettled state?
  In our debates, including the interesting contribution that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) began way back in December and has just

  503
  completed, hon. Members have asked whether the changes made by the treaty achieve constitutional stability, or whether there are more to come. Such an analysis of the Amsterdam treaty is one of the most interesting areas for the Committee to consider.
  I was at the meeting of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to which the Foreign Secretary gave his assessment of the extent to which the various changes in the treaty represent progress towards greater integration. He used robust language to explain the consequences of the Amsterdam treaty. He said:
  "I think that the Treaty represents three major steps forward … On the major steps forward … it demonstrates that the high tide of integrationism in Europe was reached at Maastricht and that high tide is now at something of an ebb."
  Those are interesting phrases, and I recall Douglas Hurd using them when he defended the Maastricht treaty. For a start, the language itself is interesting—its tone and temperament. Perhaps I am more gullible than some, but I take comfort from its strength and robustness. It is clearly an objective of the present Foreign Secretary—and, therefore; presumably of the Government as a whole—to support the ebbing of the tide of integration. One would not use such language if that were not one's objective. The question is whether the Foreign Secretary's view of the treaty justifies such an assessment.
  In subsequent evidence, the Foreign Secretary invoked, or cited, three developments in the treaty that encouraged him to believe that the tide was ebbing. I shall not dwell on this, because a later group of amendments deals with the subject, but one of those developments was the indication that subsidiarity would be justiciable under the new treaty. My right hon. Friend also took comfort from a phrase that had been introduced for the first time, requiring the Commission to respect the diversity of cultures among the nations that make up the European Union. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend had protected British interests in regard to external border controls. He also made the case to the Committee that the change in, and the limited character of, qualified majority voting was sensible, and, in comparison with the original demands, reflected the ebbing of the tide of integrationism.
  Even if we accept the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the tidal condition of integrationism, we must make one huge, sad exception in respect of the enormous new tidal wave represented by monetary union. That constitutes a tidal wave of integrationism in every sense. When members of the Committee suggested as much, however, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that it was not the fault of the Amsterdam treaty, but the fault of the Maastricht treaty. I am asking—in a limited sense—to what extent the Foreign Secretary is justified in his belief that Amsterdam represents something of an ebb tide.
  I have to say that the Foreign Secretary has some evidence with which to make his case in regard to qualified majority voting. It seemed from the original proposals that were scrutinised in the run-up to the Amsterdam negotiations that many EU members—at one point, apparently, most of them—had an agenda for a much greater degree of qualified majority voting than what eventually emerged.
  I have read, with some interest, the various documents that have poured out of the European Parliament, and have noted their assessment of the Amsterdam treaty. I was particularly interested by a report from the Committee on
  504
  Institutional Affairs on the whole issue of qualified majority voting. What runs through that report is desperate disappointment that the Amsterdam treaty did not go nearly as far as everyone expected in terms of qualified majority voting. The committee believed that the extension of QMV constitutes a vital reform in terms of promoting efficiency, and in the context of future enlargement. I shall deal with that shortly, and shall invite my hon. Friend the Minister of State to comment.
  The committee also said that a depressing feature of the Amsterdam treaty was the fact that, despite the belief of the entire reflection group that QMV should be a general rule on grounds of efficiency—with a modest number of exceptions—that objective had not emerged from the Amsterdam negotiations.
  I realise that there will be differences of opinion between us on the Committee. I saw some of the committee's earlier work and the lists of what it hoped would be driven through by qualified majority voting, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has a point. Nothing like the tidal wave of change towards integration through qualified majority voting has emerged from Amsterdam. Amsterdam put a brake on the vaulting ambitions of a number of those who had developed arguments in the reflection group and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend has a case, at least in relation to QMV and the core decision-making process. It was more modest than we had feared.
  4.30 pm
  It becomes clear when we read the documents—I suspect that the same is true within the Commission—that there is no settled constitutional arrangement in relation to QMV. There is no doubt that the European Parliament or the Commission will vigorously try to make QMV a general rule, with only a few exceptions, rather than the reverse.
  I am going to turn on its head the argument of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I believe that enlargement will be used as the excuse or reason for a massive extension of QMV. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making the reverse case. I think that there will be a renewed battle over whether QMV is a natural, conditional necessity of enlargement.
  Given the robust nature of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the ebb tide of integrationism, in the Committee and elsewhere, from which I take comfort, when the Minister of State replies to the debate, will he state clearly that he does not believe that enlargement should be used to justify a considerable extension of QMV?
  We know that there will have to be institutional changes of one sort or another as a result of enlargement. The Amsterdam negotiations could not cope with those arguments, so there will be some future gathering—an intergovernmental conference of one sort or another—to deal with the institutional consequences of enlargement.
  I suspect that the next big push, the next wave—to borrow my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's phrase—of integrationism will be tied to, allied with and promoted alongside enlargement. It will be argued that there will have to be much more QMV in order to make enlargement work. I agree with the Government's support for enlargement, but I plead with my hon. Friend the

  505
  Minister of State to make it clear that he will not buy the argument that the large-scale extension of QMV is an inevitable consequence or condition of enlargement. We should state now that we detach those arguments from each other, otherwise the ebb tide of integrationism, about which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave such a robust statement, will turn out to be short-lived.
  I do not know whether the draft resolution that I found among the European parliamentary papers has been amended, but even its language in draft form is revealing. I found a curious and interesting phrase, and I should be interested if my hon. Friend the Minister of State could comment on it. That draft resolution on Amsterdam, which was to be put to the European Parliament, says that the European Parliament
  "Considers that the Amsterdam Treaty marks the end of an historical era when the work of European unification could be undertaken, stage by stage, using the methods of classic diplomacy;
  Is convinced, instead, that politics should become the driving force behind shaping the new European Union".
  That is an interesting and curious observation.
  What clearly upset those who drafted the resolution was that the intergovernmental conference, contrary to the wishes of those of a more integrationist nature, turned out to be a brake. IGCs generally are seen as a brake on development and integration. Those who drafted the resolution believe that we must find ways round the IGC process, because it has turned out to be an obstacle to the momentum that the integrationists want to achieve. That is what is behind the words:
  "Considers that the Amsterdam Treaty marks the end of an historical era when the work of European unification could be undertaken, stage by stage, using the methods of classic diplomacy".
  I assume that those methods are IGC negotiations—the hard-bitten, businesslike way in which one has to get the consent of everyone, to make progress. That has turned out to be an impediment to the ambitions of those who want to go much further, who believe that that impediment should end.
  I find it difficult to understand that viewpoint. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State can tell us whether there is any process other than the IGC through which the constitutional development of the European Union can take place. I do not understand how politics could be a replacement. Politics can be a driving force, but the process of classic diplomatic negotiation, represented by the IGC process, is the only procedure by which constitutional change in the European Union can take place.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's arguments carefully, and I very much agree with what he says. Is there not another constitutional process which works through the European Court and the acquis communautaire? I refer to the process by which there is a constant accumulation of power. Is that not precisely why we must at some point have a reversion of powers? It is no good just blocking things temporarily through the IGCs. We must have a reversion of powers, especially those accumulated by the court.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is true that through the acquis
  506
  communautaire and the judgments of the European Court of Justice, there has been an accumulation of power. Indeed, the court's task originally was to promote European union. A constitution could be developed through the route that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but that would not be appropriate for institutional changes or the extension of qualified majority voting. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, we might get an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State on that point.
  Those who wrote the draft resolution were fretting at the difficulty of making rapid progress towards integration through the IGC process. They are now looking for another means of promoting that integration and getting constitutional change. I asked a question about that and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), in his interesting intervention, also raised the point. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply. Is the IGC the only procedure by which constitution making can take place in the European Union, or is there some other method that can avoid the "classic diplomacy" of the IGC negotiations? That is an extremely important question.
  My position on European issues is pretty well known—
  Mr. Giles Radice: Tell us.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am tempted, but I shall not.
  I do not share the extreme interpretation of the Amsterdam treaty expressed by some Conservative Members. I remain, however, eternally sceptical and vigilant. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will repeatedly exercise vigilance, so that we ensure that we do not get a new tidal wave of integrationism and so that the ebb tide is real.
  Mr. William Cash: The matter of qualified majority voting goes to the heart of our democracy. Ultimately, if we are to allow an incremental increase in majority voting, it will—with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer)—be a question not so much, or exclusively, of the existence of the European Court of Justice, but of the functions to which enlarged qualified majority voting will be applied. As I said in response to an intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), if we are to have a European Community at all, it is inevitable that there will be a Court of Justice. The key question is not whether we should have a court, but on which functions the court should be allowed to adjudicate.
  In signing up at Amsterdam, the Government have substantially—massively—increased not only qualified majority voting but the co-decision procedure that will effectively give the European Parliament a veto over legislation that it is asked to consider.
  The difficulties can be demonstrated in a number of examples, such as the removal of the veto—by extension of qualified majority voting—on adapting or supplementing the research framework programme or on establishing joint undertakings in research and development. The Minister of State might like to recall that, when called upon to consider the fifth directive on the research framework programme, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry severely complained and, because of the costs, rejected the idea that there should be an extension of jurisdiction. I should be interested to know the Minister's reply on that point.

  507
  It is, moreover, equally clear that the research framework programme is merely a jobs-for-the-boys operation. There has been an enormous proliferation of agencies and of one type or another of "expert groups", which are saddling Europe's, and particularly Britain's, taxpayers with enormous costs. It is extraordinary that we should no longer be able to veto arrangements that even the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry rejected. How can the Minister of State approve of removing the veto and of allowing qualified majority voting, whereas the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry said that he does not want QMV? It is extraordinary.
  What does majority voting involve? When people cast their vote in a general election, they are making a decision about the type of Government and specific programmes that they want. If we develop the concept of majority voting and of extending it in the arena of government—not only for technical and trading reasons, some of which are understandable and acceptable in increasing trade and in removing the logjam of uncompetitive practices in Europe—which is what the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties do, it becomes apparent that the individual who casts his vote in a general election to decide the type of Government he wants will lose that right, subject only to spurious claims that there is some democracy in the Council of Ministers.
  We are back to the matter of accountability. If there is insufficient parliamentary scrutiny in the European Union, it will follow that there is no genuine manner in which Ministers can be held accountable for their decisions. I have been a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation for the best part of 14 years, and it has repeatedly become abundantly clear to me that Ministers will go out of their way to ensure that any matter that causes them difficulty in their decision making is bypassed. The Government's absolute determination to pack the current European Legislation Committee with Labour Members, so that they will always have a majority, is outrageous, disgraceful and goes completely against the provisions of the protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, which the Government themselves have endorsed.
  4.45 pm
  It is no good for the Labour Government to pretend that they are somehow the leader in scrutiny arrangements, which go to the very heart of qualified majority voting, if in practice decisions are taken by a Committee packed with Labour Members and a Chairman who is himself a Labour Member—despite all the conventions established since 1972, to ensure the impartiality that is absolutely essential in making the system function properly.
  The combination of the Government's actions in accepting the Amsterdam treaty and qualified majority voting and the draconian and almost totalitarian manner in which they are determined to maintain control over every aspect of the way in which this legislation is scrutinised is a contradiction and will cause them much difficulty in the next few years.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Surely the hon. Gentleman is missing one rather important element: the House of Commons does not properly treat its responsibilities on the flood of rubbish from Brussels. We have Scrutiny Committees that do not have teeth,
  508
  and we do not debate on the Floor of the House the decisions of those Scrutiny Committees. The reality is that, unfortunately, the Government are following the appalling example set by previous Governments, who did not tackle the problem when they should have done; they have failed disastrously to do so ever since.
  Mr. Cash: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have enormous sympathy, based on some experience, with what she has said. Time and again, under the previous Government, I made representations in the Select Committee that those matters should be debated on the Floor of the House. Time and again, the then Leader of the House refused to accept those representations. However, the new Government are worse. The Government and the Leader of the House continuously refuse to allow those matters to be debated on the Floor of the House.
  The process implicit in the idea of qualified majority voting and the democratic deficit which people constantly mention when discussing the European Parliament, is much worse when applied to national Parliaments. To include a protocol on national Parliaments at the back end of the treaty will be of value only if not only the United Kingdom but—as I deeply doubt—the rest of the Community have a fully effective scrutiny process.
  I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and I sincerely hope that she will use such influence as she has—which I am sure is considerable—with the Government to ensure that they, too, understand the point. At the heart of what is happening—over time, in incremental additions—is the creation of institutional arrangements, the object of which is to create a European Union that will effectively deny to this Parliament the right to make decisions on behalf of the people who voted for us in general elections. It is a very simple matter; it is about a cross in the ballot box.
  As I asked the Minister in an earlier debate, does he deny that progress in institutional integration is leading to the inevitable consequence of one country, one Europe? He knows perfectly well that it is. I suppose that some would say that, in a typically British fashion, we are allowing it to happen by increments, but it is in the provisions that we are currently debating, with respect not only to qualified majority voting, but to co-decision with the European Parliament.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that matters are worse than he has outlined, in terms of the lack of accountability and the fact that people will go to the ballot box and vote for Governments who are inhibited by such provisions? Under article 107 or 109 of the Maastricht treaty, it is illegal for democratically elected Parliaments and assemblies—I stress that, as I come from Wales—to influence the unelected and unaccountable European central bank to respond to such issues as unemployment or poverty. Therefore, the position is worse than the hon. Gentleman described, and this is one of the few occasions on which he can be accused of underestimating the problems related to the European Union.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am more than happy to take up his point. The voting arrangements with respect to economic and monetary union, and the flexibility arrangements that we shall

  509
  discuss when we consider the next group of amendments, are described by the Commission as the best form of flexibility that has yet been devised, yet they are governed ultimately by majority voting, and the central bankers are under a legal prohibition from seeking or taking instructions from member states. Therefore, in respect of monetary policy, which has a fundamental impact on unemployment, inflation and the whole conduct of our economy, the concept of majority voting—the Bill represents a substantial addition—is having a devastating effect on the right of the British people to make their own decisions at the ballot box. It is a complete and total abdication of responsibility and a denial of democratic accountability, which applies at the ballot box and in the Chamber. The Minister of State knows perfectly well that it is the case, and I doubt whether he would be prepared to deny a word of what I have said.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has himself dangerously understated the seriousness of the issue in one key respect? It is not only not proper or permissible for democratically elected Parliaments to make representations to the European central bank about its conduct of monetary policy, but, moreover, the ones that seek to do so are potentially subject to fines.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are subject to fines, penalties and sanctions.
  Hon. Members will have to ask themselves some central questions about the concept of qualified majority voting and the continual denial of democratic accountability. How much further will we allow it to continue? Will we continue making speeches and operating on the basis of seeking to persuade, or will we take more immediate action?
  The process is continuing in a manner that quite clearly will not be prevented by speeches and persuasion. I am convinced that the complete refusal to listen to the arguments that were engaged in respect of the Maastricht treaty and the Amsterdam treaty is leading inexorably to a position in which we shall have to take more specific action in order to stop the tide—otherwise, frankly, we are wasting our time.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I hope that my hon. Friend will not sit down before spelling out what that alternative action is.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend will know that I do not make such a statement lightly. Indeed, there is no question but that there will come a time when the British people, who are overwhelmingly against the continuing loss of sovereignty that is implicit in the qualified majority voting arrangements, will take it no longer.
  In conclusion, it is all very well for the establishment—on whichever side of the House—to continue to believe that, by encouraging the process or by not resisting it sufficiently, it will be able to allow it to continue. There is a central question before the British people, which eventually will culminate in a referendum in a few years' time. We should start preparing for that referendum
  510
  now—three and a half years ahead—to ensure that the British people have the proper information and are not deluded or misinformed by propaganda. I believe that when the time comes—and action will have to be taken in the interim—the British people will decide not to accept such provisions—in respect of qualified majority voting, co-decision or other devices—leading to the institutional integration of Europe into what will effectively be regarded as one country.
  Mr. David Heath: I am a little disappointed as I was looking forward to the denouement of the speech by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and finding out precisely what action he was proposing and how it would manifest itself on the streets of Britain, but we must wait another day for that.
  I should like to return to the speech by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), to which I listened with great care. In one respect I certainly agree with him. We are in a transitional period. The Amsterdam treaty and the intergovernmental conference left many questions unanswered and I hope that they will be answered in the near future. It is clear that the Bill and the treaty cannot be the end product.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to the end of the historical era of classic diplomacy, but an alternative construction could be put on his words—there is a realisation that we have come to the end of the top-down assertion of the European project, where so much has been disguised or put into code. Rather, we are moving towards a stage at which progress—if there is to be progress—will be made with the assent of the peoples of Europe and with their informed consent. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may welcome that, as I and my party do, as we believe that it is the right way forward.
  Mr. Rowlands: I would like to believe that, but it is clear from the tone and tenor of the rest of the documents from which I was quoting that there is an institutional impatience among European parliamentarians that their will has not prevailed. I do not think that it was an expression from the bottom upwards, but more a political elite within Europe becoming impatient and fretting at the fact that the people of Europe were beginning to express concern about integration.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman may very well be right, but I cannot judge that without looking at the documents. Let us be optimistic that we are entering a new phase of European negotiations.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman says that we are moving towards an era of integration by consent within the European Union. I am sure that he will agree that in order to consent to something, people must be aware of it. Will he therefore tell the Committee whether, in the course of his election campaign, he informed the electors of Somerton and Frome that he would support further extension to qualified majority voting and co-decision? Did he tell them that he favoured an increased arrogation of power to the Community institutions—yes or no?
  Mr. Heath: As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman used words that I did not use. I did not mention integration. I referred to progress on the European project,

  511
  whatever that might mean. It could indicate movement in any direction. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say rather than what he thinks that I say. Throughout my time in politics I have consistently said that we must be clear about those issues and put them to the British people and the other peoples of Europe to let them decide. That is why the Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a referendum on major institutional changes in Europe. That policy was finally matched by some other parties, although some were not prepared to accept the argument.
  That is an aside, because we are talking about qualified majority voting. It may be an oversight, but I do not recall the speech by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on the subject. It was a long time ago—on 3 December—and I suspect that I may have been out of the Chamber at the time because of a surfeit of European affairs, in which case I apologise to him.
  5 pm
  I have read the hon. Gentleman's speech carefully to make sure that I understand his arguments in favour of removing the parts of the Bill that refer to qualified majority voting. I am not persuaded by his arguments because, although he was generous enough to make it clear that he has happily moved away from the view that the modest changes to QMV represent the end of the nation state as we know it, he failed to address the problems with the proposals in the Bill. What is the difficulty for Britain's national interest if those measures progress? He considered the matter purely as a bargaining chip for negotiation on other objectives rather than examining the value of the measures.
  I often observe the inconsistency of the Conservatives' avowed commitment to the concept of enlargement and their disavowal of the processes that are necessary to enable enlargement to go ahead. Qualified majority voting is a necessary prerequisite to enlargement in some areas. I mean no offence to the Governments of applicant countries, but I would feel uncomfortable if, 10 minutes after joining the European Union, Slovenia, Cyprus or the Czech Republic had a veto on matters appertaining to the whole European Union. There should be an element of force majeure in the European Union that recognises the strength of opinion of large population groups. Qualified majority voting provides that.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Would the hon. Gentleman be happier with the possibility of Cyprus, Slovenia and other new member states, 10 minutes after joining the European Union, overruling the wishes of the British Government and the British people?
  Mr. Heath: It would require a strange mathematical process indeed for those small countries to be able to do that without the exercise of a veto against the wishes of the British people. That is my argument.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has failed to make his point once. I am reluctant to let him fail to do so again.
  The second point on which I failed to follow the logic of the hon. Member for South-West Devon was on the European Parliament. He appeared to suggest that,
  512
  because he did not like some Members of the European Parliament and their opinions, they should have no part in any decision-making process. I do not like the opinions of quite a few hon. Members of this Chamber, but I accept that they have a proper role in the political process. It is not entirely logical to claim that the value of an elected assembly is undermined because the hon. Gentleman takes exception to some things that some Members have said.
  It would be preferable to consider the process of negotiation not simply in terms of bargaining chips and maximising advantage in other areas. That is an important part of negotiation, but we should also consider where the advantage lies for Britain in the measures that are put forward. There are clear advantages for Britain and for the European Union in the extension of QMV in limited areas. The most obvious example is the extension of QMV to measures on fraud. It would be wrong to allow individual national Governments to veto proper measures on fraud simply because they would be to their disadvantage.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the light of our experience of other member states, proposals put forward by the British Government to improve surveillance of fraud would almost certainly be rejected by other member states because they have been conducting their affairs in a certain way for so long that they will not want to change their current fraudulent way of operating?
  Mr. Heath: I am not entirely prepared to accept that every member of the European Union but us is a rogue. There are examples of fraud in this country and there are other member states that are equally keen to root out fraud. However, we do not have the necessary equipment and rigour to do that. Britain has a lot to offer with our audit processes, such as the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office. We should encourage other countries to take equally rigorous steps. Qualified majority voting provides us with that opportunity.
  I am not incautious about QMV. There are areas in which it would not be helpful, but the areas in the treaty are good examples of QMV being to the advantage of the European Union and of Britain.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: I have been generous in giving way. I must finish my remarks so that we can make progress this evening.
  If the European Union achieves proper subsidiarity, many of the concerns expressed by hon. Members will disappear. I share the scepticism of many about whether that subsidiarity will take root, but I recognise that there is a protocol that will enable us to monitor that. I hope that we shall move in the right direction of power being exercised at the lowest available level.
  I recognise the European Parliament as an alternative Parliament with a proper electoral mandate, including British Members. It will have an improved mandate when the Bill is passed and we have sorted out our d'Hondts from our La Saintes and all the other necessary arrangements. The Members of the European Parliament could then be said to have a more proper claim to

  513
  represent the political views of this country than we shall until there are changes in our constitutional arrangements. The European Parliament will be able to hold the Council of Ministers to account to an extent. That must be right, because the Council of Ministers is immune from accountability in many ways, other than through the inadequate processes of national Parliaments. We shall have a proper avenue for parliamentary scrutiny. That must be right, ensuring proper scrutiny of matters by the elected representatives of the people of Europe. If the European Parliament, which costs a large amount of money, is not given powers to exercise properly, we must question whether it will misuse the powers that it has. We have seen examples of that in previous legislation.
  The Bill is sensible. Its proposals are proportionate and will achieve a sensible outcome for this country and the European Union. I reject the arguments of the hon. Member for South-West Devon and I shall oppose them in the Lobby this evening.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I would like to exercise the Committee by raising the concept of co-decision, as hitherto we have dealt largely with qualified majority voting. There are 25 new areas in which co-decision will operate, excluding immigration, asylum and free movement, in which it may operate progressively. So there are already 25 areas and there may be more.
  The problem with co-decision is that it is being given to a Parliament that manifestly is not a Parliament.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is an assembly.
  Mr. Swayne: Absolutely. It is an assembly, because a Parliament requires a people and there is no European people. What is more, paragraph 3 of article 6 of the treaty purports to ensure that there should be no European people—but if anyone believes that they would believe anything. It is enough to make a cat laugh.
  We have already seen all sorts of attempts to remove national differences and identities by degrees, and there is no doubt that the progression will be, as it always has been in the development of the European Union, that the cart will be put before the horse. Having created a Parliament, the Union then sets about creating a people for the Parliament to represent. However for the moment, and therefore for the operation of the treaty, there is no European people, so co-decision must be opposed.
  Our European partners are clear on that point. In 1993 the Karlsruhe court ruled, in effect, that the European Parliament was not a Parliament. The French constitutional council was equally forthright, pointing out that the European Parliament
  "does not participate in the exercise of the national sovereignty of the French Republic".
  It does not represent France; it cannot represent the French people. Therefore, it cannot represent the French people in the exercise of sovereignty as part of the people of Europe—which, as I pointed out, does not exist.
  Given that there is no people for the Parliament to represent, it must be fundamentally against our constitutional principles to hand co-decision to such an
  514
  institution. The only proper institution for the taking of such decisions and the exercise of that sovereignty is this House.
  Mr. Brady: We must ask what is the logic in the treaty of extending qualified majority voting and the co-decision procedures. As we think about the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), we must ask whether there is a continuing tide towards European integration or whether there is an ebb tide.
  I can see no logic in the extension of QMV in the context of an ebb tide of European integration. If we examine why it was first extended by the Single European Act, we see that there was a clear and specific reason—to create a single European market. However, I fear that the logic of further extension of QMV has to be seen as aiming at achieving further single integrated European structures.
  Certainly we see a drive towards a single social and employment regime across the whole of Europe. There is no doubt in my mind that the further development of QMV constitutes a massive move towards further integration. Even if at present we see in the Amsterdam treaty a minor ebb in the tide that has been flowing towards integration, we must accept the fact that the process of European integration has worked over time, and continues to work, by a ratchet effect. There may be a temporary slowing in the pace of integration—
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is making an important point about what the logic of it all is. That was the point that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), would not address. He said that he liked the measures in the Amsterdam treaty but that there were other measures involving QMV that he did not like. We were trying to intervene in his speech, because it showed that the Liberal Democrats are all over the place—or perhaps they are making a secret of their beliefs. My hon. Friend is making exactly the point that should have been addressed by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and I look forward to his developing the theme further.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) did another service by inadvertently pressing the case even further, with his remarks about the effect that new members joining the European Union might have on the dynamics of decision-making within the Union.
  5.15 pm
  The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that he was not quite sure whether he was in favour of further integration was not entirely consistent with the alarm that he apparently felt at the prospect of Cyprus, Slovenia and other new entrants having the power to prevent further integration by exercising a right of veto should the United Kingdom wish to move towards further integration.
  That alarm was certainly not matched by a similar alarm about what might happen if we wished to arrest progress towards European integration and stop the loss of British sovereignty as it moves further towards Brussels and Strasbourg. The hon. Gentleman was not similarly alarmed by the prospect that new entrant countries, by adding to the weight of votes in a qualified

  515
  majority, could overrule what the British Parliament and the British Government, of whatever party, might wish to do.
  That gave the game away about what the Liberal Democrats, with one honourable exception, seem to believe—that European integration is the supreme goal that we should all pursue to the exclusion of all else.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said that we should soon see the prospect of a further drive towards integration, with economic and monetary union. That in itself would necessitate the harmonisation of tax and expenditure across the EU. It would drive us towards a need for co-ordinated programmes of regional and international transfer of funds, to iron out the economic differences between the member states.
  As that process happens there is in prospect a further drive towards the extension of QMV and for integration not only in economic and monetary matters but in subsidiary areas. It will be believed that because we have a single currency we must have a single regime in allied respects—the same employment laws and the same social regime across the whole of Europe.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is developing an interesting argument and drawing in support for what was said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Is it not true that the drive for the extension of qualified majority voting exists only because the bureaucratic oligarchy of the European Union sees it as the only way in which to achieve European integration?
  Overwhelmingly, throughout the countries that make up the European Union—give or take a Belgium or a Luxembourg—the people do not want that. We have heard a lot about "the people's Europe", but the peoples of Europe do not want integration. The reason why we are driving forwards with qualified majority voting is that the oligarchy of Helmut Kohl and others see it as the only way to achieve an integrated Europe.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is not only the peoples of Europe who patently do not want further integration; we can see clearly from the attendance in the Chamber and the contributions today that the people of north-west England do not want it either. I am delighted to hear a fellow Cheshire Member of Parliament make such an eloquent point against an integration that is contrary both to the wishes of the British people and to those of the peoples of other European countries.
  Several hon. Members have already said that we are now seeing part of a process that is putting power, sovereignty and the sacred link between this Parliament and the British people in danger.
  There are other developments, such as the advent of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Last night, we were discussing the transfer of power to regional development agencies—the precursors of regional assemblies across England. All those measures compound the greatest danger, which we have seen in recent years, that the peoples of Europe have begun to feel increasingly estranged from the politicians who are meant to represent them.
  It is disturbing that the Government are moving political power and sovereignty in two directions; on the one hand, to Brussels and Strasbourg, and on the other,
  516
  to Scotland, Wales and the regions. That might not matter if there were real democratic legitimacy in those institutions, but I do not believe that that is the case. The levels of interest have been shown most notably by the referendum on the Welsh Assembly, in which there was a tiny majority in favour; even that result has been called into question, as there may have been irregularities in the vote. Any similar referendums across the regions of England would show that there is no demand for any regional assemblies. If we move power to regional level on the one hand and to European level on the other, there will be a further diminution of the relationship between the people and their representatives, their elected politicians.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the genuine level of European public interest. Does he agree that a problem with co-decision and with giving more power to the European Parliament is that, contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—who implied that the European Parliament was somehow equivalent to a national Parliament—there is not one single member state of the EU where the turnout for elections to the European Parliament is remotely comparable with the turnout for the elections to the national Parliament? In this country, it is barely half the turnout for the election to the Westminster Parliament. The people want their national Parliaments to govern them, not the European Parliament.
  Mr. Brady: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's remarks. Furthermore, the Government's recent proposals to change the method by which we elect Members of the European Parliament compound the danger by removing the representative from any kind of meaningful constitutional context. We are to have MEPs representing the north-west, an area stretching from south of Chester to the Scottish border. There will be no relevance or interest for people to vote in European elections, as they will neither know nor care for whom they are voting. No democratic control can be exercised in the European Parliament by British MEPs on behalf of the British people. That is a cause for the greatest concern. This move, embodied in the Amsterdam treaty, is another part of the process which removes political and democratic control from the British people, and it is very much to be resisted.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I want to make only a few remarks—given the short amount of time we have to discuss this issue—about qualified majority voting and the effect that it has on a nation's ability to govern itself.
  When the British Government—or, indeed, any Government—agree to extend QMV, they should do so in the sober knowledge that they are allowing their people, their Parliament and their Executive to be overruled by other countries. In terms of the Single European Act, I agreed with the case for handing away powers to ensure that opportunities for free trade could be pursued. Those of us who support free trade would argue that both sides benefit and that it is a way of getting rid of protectionism.
  When the Government extend QMV into areas beyond the commercial sector, they should do so with great reservations. This Government came to office on a manifesto that contained four proposals to extend QMV. To be fair, they were endorsed by the British people at

  517
  the general election, but the Government succeeded in gaining acceptance for only one and chose to accept QMV in 13 others. In 13 new areas of policy, the Government have allowed this House, our people and themselves to be overruled by a combination of other European countries.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is addressing these points with such skill that I do not want to upset his train of thought, but he said that the Government should consider giving away QMV in areas other than commercial spheres only with the greatest reservations. Does he agree that in respect of matters such as monetary union, a common defence and security policy and Government functions—all areas that deal ultimately with the right of the people to decide for themselves what sort of Government they should have—there should be a complete and total refusal to allow QMV?
  Mr. Blunt: Yes. In the commercial sphere, we have been content to see QMV passed, in a sense, to the World Trade Organisation, which is able to ensure that companies can enter markets that otherwise would be protected. That is in our interest, as it is in the interests of the consumers of those markets supposedly being protected by the actions of their Governments.
  I wish to address in particular the issue of the Slovenian veto. It is a canard to suggest that the little countries coming into the EU will behave in such a way as to obstruct the whole business of the EU unless we have QMV in almost every conceivable area. It is wrong to say that we cannot have enlargement without QMV. That argument is false. In terms of decision making in the EU, the pressures on a small country not to obstruct the rest of the EU are immense. The only circumstances in which they will consider behaving in such a way is if they believe that their national interests are being affected.
  We must consider the bilateral regulations that these countries have with every other member state; we have seen, for example, the pressures brought to bear on Greece in terms of its dealings with Macedonia. It is only with the most serious contemplation of the consequences of exercising the veto that small countries will consider obstructing the clear will of their partner countries.
  We need, as far as possible, to move by consensus to defend the vital national interests of the people of those countries. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation works perfectly well by consensus, and achieving consensus is the purpose of negotiations. When a country's national interests are affected, the strength of individual vetoes is that their partners are forced to come to the negotiating table to identify the key issues affecting the small countries. The small countries will exercise a veto only on the most minute number of occasions when their interests are threatened. The big countries—Germany, the United Kingdom and France—represent substantial populations and have a wider range of interests. They will feel freer to negotiate more powerfully and to exercise the veto if they wish to do so.
  Mr. David Heath: What about Spain?
  Mr. Blunt: Spain has 36 million people—a substantial number. The hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to
  518
  Gibraltar. We saw how Spain pulled a fast one on the Government during the negotiations. Gibraltar is a subject that exercises our vital national interest.
  Mr. Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman say—yes or no—whether Spain should have a veto on Britain's entry into the Schengen agreement, should Britain wish to do so?
  Mr. Blunt: I am perfectly content with that in those circumstances. I am arguing here for the preservation of the veto, so it must be perfectly proper for Spain to have it. The key point about the veto is that it enables nations to protect their vital national interests. The Government have given away that power in 13 new areas, with no electoral mandate to do so.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Earlier in his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned Slovenia. That country wants to join the European Union, and its economy is dominated by agriculture. Qualified majority voting may not be relevant to agriculture at the moment, but is not it interesting that, in their recent discussions, the ruler of Europe—sorry, the Chancellor of Germany, Mr. Helmut Kohl—made it perfectly clear to our Prime Minister, the current President of Europe, that he is not prepared to consider any amendment to the common agricultural policy because it would be against the interests of the Christian Social Union and the Christian Democratic Union to do so before the German elections in September? Does not that show the nonsense of Europe?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes a clear point about the conduct of the common agricultural policy. It is a separate issue from QMV, because QMV already exists in that policy, and it should properly be there because agriculture is a commercial sphere.
  I would like Ministers and hon. Members of all parties who hold dear the success of the European Union to understand that it will succeed when it can move by consensus, commanding the support of the people, and that it will fail when it tramples over the rights and privileges of millions of its citizens.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I want to comment on two points: the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) quoted someone in the European Parliament as saying that intergovernmental conferences were a brake on the process; my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned the logic of the way in which matters are proceeding.
  Of course it is right, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), when there is a proposal for 14 new areas for qualified majority voting—areas such as public health, social exclusion and research and development, none of which, incidentally, affects the single market, into which QMV was originally introduced, quite logically, with the agreement of my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher—for those of us who do not believe in a federal state of Europe to oppose it and to have a good debate. Of course it is right, when there are 27 new areas of co-decision involving a Parliament each of whose Members cost £1 million to support, that we should oppose such extensions; but the present question concerns

  519
  whether the intergovernmental conferences are a distraction, and the logic of the move towards a federal state.
  If I believed in a federal state of Europe, I would do exactly what the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) is doing today: I would sit and listen, and keep very quiet indeed, because one of the paradoxes of the present scene is that the people on the streets do not want a federal state, but someone has concocted the idea and it is now inexorably going ahead, even though I and many others cannot see any advantage whatever in it. Whatever the IGCs say, the system has been set in motion.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman and I are colleagues on the Treasury Select Committee and we know each other's views well. It is important not to use language as loosely as he sometimes does. He calls me a federalist, but I am in favour of joining other members of the European Union in areas in which it is in our common interest to do so, but not in those in which it is not. I do not believe in a European super-state as a single country. To use language so loosely is misleading, and when it comes to a referendum I shall be delighted to debate the issue with him, because I shall be able to expose the way in which he uses language and his extremely extravagant approach to this whole affair.
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman must speak for his own position. I do not want to debate the details with him. Let us generalise and say that the position of those who believe in a new state of Europe is precisely the one that he has just identified: they say that we will come together loosely in various areas of co-operation, yet they go along with—indeed, they encourage and fight for—common legal and monetary systems.
  Once legal and monetary systems have been handed over, there is a new state. With the monetary system goes the economic system. I enjoy working with the hon. Member for North Durham on the Treasury Select Committee, and we debate these matters, but while I do not accuse him of being a federalist, the position that he has just enunciated is precisely that of those who want a federal state of Europe. They take such an apparently balanced approach because it is convenient to do so. They talk of a little bit here and a little bit there, but at the end of the day they want the central core of what constitutes a new state of Europe.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I seem to have a lot of hon. Friends. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend. The vision that has been enunciated, in which we co-operate where we want and do not where we do not, is simply not available, because of the acquis communautaire. Once a competence has been achieved, there is no way back even if we decide that it is not in our interest to co-operate. The whole business of qualified majority voting reinforces that and makes the process irreversible.
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend has made the second half of my speech much better than I could have
  520
  done. I could not agree with him more. Let us now hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has to say.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. Does he agree that there is a disconnect between the words uttered by Labour and Liberal Democrat spokesmen and the reality of the policies for which they vote, and that in order to make credible their claim not to be federalists they must, at the very least, identify examples of requests for extensions of QMV that they have opposed and that, better still, they should be able to cite examples of occasions on which they have sought the repatriation of powers away from the institutions of the European Union to the House of Commons?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I completely agree with that. Several of us have tried to winkle that point out of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) during this debate. It is absolutely right that, if one picks and chooses but basically goes along with the process—with the logic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said—not only must one justify the end point towards which one is heading, about which the Liberal Democrats tend to be vague or even disingenuous, but, if one thinks there is a distinction to be made between those things that should and should not be accepted, one should say where the line is to be drawn and what the principles are behind that line-drawing process. The Liberal Democrats do not do that, so I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend said.
  I wish to develop briefly my point about IGCs. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made an interesting and valuable speech. He asked some interesting questions and I hope that the Government will answer them. Among those questions was whether the IGCs represent a brake on the process. In my view they are becoming a distraction and are convenient for those who wish the process to continue its inexorable way.
  Various treaties in the past—notably Maastricht—laid down a momentum, a logic and a set of institutions, especially on the acquis communautaire and other political objectives that the European Court of Justice can now interpret as it thinks fit. The court may now enter territory previously untrodden by law and even create—or at least give backing to—new institutional arrangements, which make the IGC discussions almost irrelevant and, at worst, a distraction from what is really happening in Europe. After all, Governments usually get their way. The great hope on Amsterdam is that the Danes will veto it at the end of March, but if that does not happen the process will continue.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If memory serves me correctly—I speak as an officer of the all-party Denmark group—the Danes have voted against European issues in the past, especially the Maastricht treaty. What did the masters of Europe do on that occasion? To get their way, they forced the Danish Government to hold a second, and unprecedented, referendum.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps making speeches, not interventions, which should be brief.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I answer my hon. Friend rather blushingly, because unfortunately the presidency was held

  521
  by the British Government when the Danes were being bullied on that point. The legitimacy of that second referendum is certainly open to question. However, I shall leave that point, because we are discussing the future and Amsterdam and the only possible brake on the process is a Danish vote against it.
  Mr. Winterton: Will the same thing happen?
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend asks an interesting question, but we have on record a Government statement that the same thing probably will not happen. Back in July, I asked the Government what plans they had for the implementation of the Amsterdam treaty if it is not ratified by one or more member states. The Minister with responsibility for European issues replied:
  "The Treaty must be ratified by all 15 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, before it can come into force. Should any Member State fail to ratify the Treaty, it could not be implemented in its current form."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 186.]
  We therefore have a firm position from the British Government on the issue.
  Mr. Winterton: That was also the case in the past. The Danes were supposed to ratify the Maastricht treaty by 31 December of the year in question. They failed to do so and the second referendum took place after that date. Will not the masters of Europe resort to the same duplicitous actions as they have in the past?
  Sir Michael Spicer: It would certainly be a resigning matter for Foreign Office Ministers if they ratted on deratification in that situation. I must draw my remarks to a close because I had not intended to speak at such length.
  If the IGCs are a distraction from what is really going on—the inexorable advance towards monetary union, via Maastricht, the ECJ, the acquis communautaire and the other principles that the court has established—the discussions at them cannot achieve very much. If we as a nation believe in the continuation of the independence of the nation state—and all the other issues in which the hon. Member for North Durham said that he believes—the Government of the day must make a firm decision to retrieve powers from the European Court.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is one of the few people who has given specific examples of areas in which he wants a retrieval of powers. Once powers had been retrieved in any area, the acquis communautaire would have been torn apart and we would have started the process of bringing powers back to this country. That is what is now at stake, because we have moved on from discussions about tinkering at the margins of the process. We must of course argue against any extension of powers, but in reality the process will be stopped only if we retrieve powers from Europe. Any retrieval will demand the breaking apart of the acquis communautaire and, one day, someone will have to grasp that issue.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief, but I wish to touch on one or two of the issues that you felt I was speaking on at too great a length in my interventions, Mr. Martin.
  522
  I understood that all the countries of the European Union had to ratify the Maastricht treaty—we are talking of an extension of the Maastricht treaty when we discuss Amsterdam—by 31 December of the year in question. Some countries ratified the treaty by way of referendum. France held a referendum although, even in a country that is at the heart of Europe, the majority for a yes vote was only 1.5 per cent. over the no vote. In Denmark, there was a no vote, but the establishment, the powers that be, the bureaucratic oligarchy that now governs Europe—because we have not a people's Europe but one ruled by a limited number of people who wield considerable power—forced the Danish Government and people to hold a second referendum after the date by which the Maastricht treaty should officially have been ratified.
  I speak with some knowledge of the issue, because I visited Denmark with colleagues from both sides of the House and talked to all the political parties. I regret to say that a number of the parties that had voted no and campaigned for a no vote in the first referendum campaign told me that they would not campaign for a no vote in the second referendum. That was not because they did not want a no vote, but because they did not believe that the United Kingdom would support them as it had promised. Those political parties did not wish their country to be isolated in Europe.
  It is clear that the overwhelming majority of people in the countries of the European Union do not want a federal Europe, or any further integration of their cultures or laws. They certainly do not want an integration of their currencies. By the way, if the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) believes that a single currency would not lead to a federal Europe, he is living in fairyland. Undoubtedly, if any country loses control of its currency it loses control of its economy, and if it loses control of its economy, it loses control of the country and the government of that country, and that inevitably means that its people become subservient to some other form of government, which in this case would be Brussels and Strasbourg.
  The hon. Member for North Durham is living in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that he is in favour of a nation state and is not in favour of a federal Europe, because much of what he stands for will inevitably lead to a federal state of Europe. Any extension whatever of qualified majority voting is another notch on the ratchet to integration and to a federal Europe. For that reason, I strongly oppose what the Government are seeking to do.
  It is not easy to stand up against the power of Government. I did it when the Conservative party was in government; I have done it previously when I have been in opposition. I find opposition quite easy to understand and to accept. As I have said in the Chamber before, some people say, "The hon. Member for Macclesfield has been in opposition for all of the 26 years that he has been in the House." However, Mr. Martin, let me say to you and the Committee, that there has never been an occasion in those 26-plus years when I have not sought to represent what I, personally, fervently believe to be the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, and especially the people of the Macclesfield constituency, whom I have the great honour to represent.
  Any extension of qualified majority voting is not merely to ensure the better implementation of the Single European Act and the single market. I believe in the free market. I also believe in fair competition and a level

  523
  playing field. I believe that the hon. Member for North Durham—for whom I have the greatest affection and regard—believes fervently in everything that he says, but I believe that he is fundamentally wrong in much of what he says and believes. He could not have highlighted that better than by the intervention that he made on my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). My hon. Friend challenged him about a single currency. For the hon. Gentleman to say, as he did, that a single currency for Europe will not inevitably lead to a single Government in Europe and a federal states of Europe, shows that he must be living in an entirely different world from myself.
  Sadly, we shall not win the argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said in his excellent speech, the people of this country do not want a federal Europe. They do not want any further integration into Europe. They want to work as a nation state within Europe. They want the free market of Europe, but they do not want a federal state of Europe. That is clearly shown by the level of interest in Europe, as my hon. Friend said—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I remind him that the subject of amendment No. 66 and the other amendments grouped with it is "Qualified Majority Voting and co-decision procedure"—not a federal Europe.
  Mr. Winterton: If "Qualified Majority Voting and co-decision procedure" has nothing to do with a federal Europe, Mr. Martin, I do not know what does have anything to do with it. I am—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There could be a connection, but I am saying that that is the idea of amendments: that they are specific, and that the hon. Gentleman must tie himself into the specifics of the amendments before us and not go too wide.
  Mr. Winterton: That is what I am trying to do. Mr. Martin, I find your comments remarkably effective, and I take your advice. From the Opposition Back Benches, I can accept the way that you have put it very readily.
  I am saying to the Committee, with great emphasis—in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West—that the people of this country do not want what is being done in their name. They do not want further co-decision making; they do not want further integration; they do not want what inevitably flows from what is happening in that area—and they have shown it by their lack of interest in voting in elections. If it is the people's will, the people will reflect that by going out to vote.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: They did on 1 May.
  Mr. Winterton: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has a wonderful apartment in some ski resort and who is extremely good on the ski slopes—the hon. Member for Verbier, or is it Les Diables?—that, in any European election, the vote is less than half of that in a parliamentary election. People believe in their national Parliament, not in the European assembly.
  524
  I am saying that we do not want further transfers of power and I believe that, as history proceeds, the speeches that have been made by Conservative Members will be shown to have reflected the views of the British people.
  Dr. Rudi Vis: The hon. Gentleman says that the low turnout in Britain for European elections suggests that there is no desire on the part of the British people to come closer to Europe. In my country of birth, the Netherlands, where there are many federalists—and I am one—by the hon. Gentleman's definition, the turnout in the European elections is no higher. That shows that there is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, in the points that the hon. Gentleman just made.
  Mr. Winterton: That is a matter of opinion, and I only hope that the Government of the day have the courage to put the whole matter of Europe to a referendum in this country. They have promised to do so, as have the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party.
  In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that my view will be proved to be the one that represents the majority view of the British people. He said that the view that I expressed about the level of turnout in elections was not relevant; I can say only that I believe that it is. The Labour party received a very substantial vote in the general election on 1 May. Members of the Labour party took full credit for that; they said that it gave them a mandate. I am not sure that a mandate of about a 28 to 30 per cent. turnout in a Euro-election gives those who are Euro-federalists the mandate that they seek. I believe that it does the opposite.
  I say to my hon. Friends that I concur entirely with the arguments that they have advanced. As a believer in history, I believe that history, which is the best teacher in life, will prove us, in due course, to have been right.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): It is difficult to know where to start, given that we began this debate in early December and have been going for about an hour and a half this afternoon.
  We have all enjoyed the opposition of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) during his 26 years in Parliament. I have watched, enjoyed and respected his opposition in the 11 years that I have been in the House, and I enjoyed it no less today.
  I was surprised by the contribution from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), whom I had always believed to be the hard rock of anti-Europeanism in the House. The hon. Gentleman conceded that qualified majority voting might be desirable in some circumstances related to trade. I am beginning to think that he has gone soft compared to some of his colleagues who joined us at the last general election. However, those hon. Members who joined the hon. Gentleman in previous debates, such as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield, redeemed the reputation of the old guard in their contributions.
  6 pm
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have argued consistently in favour of free trade in Europe. I have also argued that the Single European Act is

  525
  acceptable—although it needs reform—because it delivers just that. The Minister fails to distinguish the difference between qualified majority voting on trade and commerce and matters of that kind and QMV in the arena of government, which is what monetary union and common foreign and defence policies and so on are about. There is a fundamental difference. I said earlier that I am concerned about the answer to the question, "Who governs Britain?" and about the democratic rights of the British people. For that, I shall fight to the death.
  Mr. Henderson: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's protestations—he obviously does not want to be left out of the coterie comprising his hard-line anti-European colleagues.
  I shall begin by referring to the contribution of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 3 December. In essence, he made the accusation that the treaty and the clauses to which we are referring in this debate have transferred influence and power from this Parliament to the organs of the European Union. He claimed that that was a damaging process and that the Government have given away power without charge. In later debates today, and possibly on Monday, I shall turn to what has been achieved and at what cost. I am happy to explore that issue now, but I shall have to repeat myself later.
  I shall restrict my comments to the question of qualified majority voting. It is not acceptable for the Opposition to argue that, ideologically, there is no case for extending qualified majority voting. They claim that, if we agree to qualified majority voting, it will be the end of a democratic European Union. That is the accusation levelled by Opposition Members. However, they should recall that the previous Conservative Government agreed to 15 extensions of qualified majority voting in the Amsterdam treaty and 12 extensions in the single market. There were 30 extensions of qualified majority voting in the Maastricht treaty, which enjoyed Conservative Front-Bench support. In case I should forget, I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone would remind me that not all of those extensions were related to economic and trade matters—some of them went beyond that classification.
  It ill behoves the Opposition to complain about the extension of qualified majority voting as a matter of principle. That does not mean that I shall endorse qualified majority voting on every issue that comes before the institutions of the European Union—that is not my position. However, when it is in the interests of Britain and of the European Union to support the extension of qualified majority voting, I think that Parliament has a responsibility to consider those matters objectively and to deal with each issue as it arises.
  It is not acceptable to oppose the anti-fraud provisions in the Amsterdam treaty because it is claimed that they will lead to further integration of the European Union—to which the Opposition are ideologically opposed. Those measures are crucial if we are to ensure that the money of British taxpayers and of taxpayers throughout the European Union is used effectively and spent in the manner intended. That is why it is essential to extend qualified majority voting.
  If the finger were pointed at a country and redress demanded because of the misdemeanours of that country's officials or institutions, without qualified majority voting,
  526
  it is extremely unlikely that the European Union—as a corporate organisation—would be able to ensure that that country used the money that it was allocated for that intended purpose. If there were no qualified majority voting and if unanimity were required, that country could veto any measures proposed. That is clearly a nonsense. If one believes in an effective European Union, any objective examination of the issues leads one to conclude that qualified majority voting must be extended in that case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) summed up the effect of the treaty's provisions, which will afford the limited extension of qualified majority voting and co-decision. When matters are agreed only by majority, it makes sense to allow the European Parliament to have a say on those issues also so that minority groups have another opportunity to air their views. That is essential if we are committed to the effectiveness of the European Union.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised several points in his contribution today. The question whether a settled constitution has been achieved in the European Union as a result of the treaty of Amsterdam has no answer. The hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned history. History tells us that we can never predict what will happen in the future—and it is often foolish to try to do so.
  There have been many changes in Europe in the past 10 years, to which the European Union must respond. For many years, both sides of the House condemned the political and economic structures of central and eastern Europe and demanded change. When totalitarianism was overthrown, we had a responsibility to respond—to offer the hand of friendship to the people of central and eastern Europe and, where necessary, to change the way in which we operate politically in the European Union to accommodate their needs and priorities. That makes sense. I do not believe that there will ever be a settled constitution politically. Change will occur in any dynamic process—and it is right that it should.
  Those who oppose further change in the form of more co-operation within the European Union are engaging in the politics of the past. That is the politics of isolation and remoteness, and it ignores the changes that are taking place in the world. As a country that seeks to provide a democratic example to other parts of the world, we should look forward. We should judge issues on their merits and consider when it is in our interests to enter into international agreements with other countries through the European Union and in other forums. We should begin to make those changes that are necessary to ensure that we are forward looking and can respond to the real issues.
  Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend said that we should take the lead and set a democratic example to other countries. I am sure that every hon. Member agrees with that. However, what sort of democratic example is set by article 109 of the Maastricht treaty, which makes it illegal for a democratic and accountable Parliament to put pressure on, or try to influence, an undemocratic and unelected European central bank? Does my hon. Friend accept that that is what the treaty says? Will he comment on that point?
  Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend knows that that is a narrow point—although I concede that it is an important

  527
  one. We must look at a much wider area of economic involvement. When Britain signed up with the International Monetary Fund in 1944, it was the beginning of co-operation on economic matters. In that sense, Britain could no longer adopt an economic policy, regardless of what the IMF would say about it. That was not possible under the agreements that were reached. We are witnessing an extension of international agreements over a wide area. The European Union is one of the principal extensions. The matter must be seen in that democratic context.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. It is outrageous for the Minister to refer to international agreements. He knows perfectly well that that is a matter of a legal framework; it is nothing to do with international agreements.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The Minister has been in order.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that it is right that democratically elected Parliaments and assemblies, as we shall have in Wales, will not have the legal right to try to influence an undemocratic and unaccountable European central bank? That is not a narrow point, because it relates to the power of Parliament. If we as a Parliament do not have that right to control our community, people will increasingly pose the question, "What is the use of elections, if the people for whom we vote do not have the power to change things, and the people for whom we do not vote—that is, the European central bank—have those powers?"
  Mr. Henderson: I say to my hon. Friend that we operate in a global world. There are international economic links of immense importance to his constituency, as to mine and to most constituencies in this country. It is necessary for us to view economic policy in that context. This Parliament has the ability to take the Executive out of office, if it chooses to do so. That is one way in which the Government, contributing through their decisions to the decisions in Europe, are accountable to the people. I stick to that.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Henderson: We have had a long debate, starting on 3 December. We have had an exhaustive discussion this afternoon. I do not accept the amendments.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I should be delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), something that the Minister failed to do. I think that we know why.
  The Minister's response to the debate, like his negotiating performance at Amsterdam, has been extremely disappointing. He has failed to explain why, at Amsterdam, the Government made so many concessions, with so little in return. He has failed to deal with the excellent points raised by his hon. Friends about enlargement being used as an excuse for further QMV. He has failed to deal with the substantial points raised by many of my hon. Friends about the ratchet effect of QMV and co-decision. He has again used the bogus argument about voting arrangements on fraud.
  528
  Why does not the Minister accept that no one is talking about enforcement measures being drawn up by unanimity? We are talking about making the law itself on fraud by unanimity, and the enforcement measures by QMV in the ordinary course of events. We have made the point repeatedly.
  The Minister's response has been woeful. He has failed to deal with the arguments. We are left with no alternative but to press the matter to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 284.

  Division No. 129]

  [6.13 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Horam, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bercow, John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Blunt, Crispin

  Body, Sir Richard

  Key, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brady, Graham

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cash, William

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Madel, Sir David

  Cran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Faber, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Ross, William (E Lond"y)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hayes, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  529

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, William

  Wilshire, David

  Tredinnick David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cotter, Brian

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cousins, Jim

  Allan, Richard

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Crausby, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cummings, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darvill, Keith

  Austin, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Baker, Norman

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dismore, Andrew

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benton, Joe

  Edwards, Huw

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Follett, Barbara

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, Bernie

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gunnell, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, Peter

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chidgey, David

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coaker, Vermon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Iain

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  530

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Oaten, Mark

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Illsley, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Ingram, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rammell, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rapson, Syd

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruane, Chris

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Salter, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Sawford, Phil

  Lepper, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sheerman, Barry

  Levitt, Tom

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Linton, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lock, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  McNulty, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  MacShane, Denis

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Todd, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Touhig, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Trickett, Jon

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Truswell, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Milburn, Alan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Vaz, Keith

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wallace, James

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Watts, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Andrew

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  531

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Willis, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Wood, Mike

  Ms Bridget Prentice.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 13, after '9', insert
  `(except Article 2 paragraph 40)'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `(except Article 2 paragraph 41)'.
  No. 24, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 5)'.
  No. 52, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 39)'.
  No. 53, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 40)'.
  No. 54, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 41)'.
  No. 55, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 42)'.
  No. 56, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 43)'.
  New clause 17—Preparations for enlargement of the European Union—
  `.—Pursuant to the Protocol on the Institutions with the Prospect of Enlargement of the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, stipulating a conference of the Member States in order to carry out a comprehensive review of the provisions of the Treaties on the composition and functioning of the institutions, Her Majesty's Government shall—

  (a) publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement regarding the reform of the composition and functioning of the institutions, no later than one month prior to the commencement of the conference, and

  (b) not agree to such reform until a draft of the agreement has been lain before both Houses of Parliament, and approved by resolution of the House of Commons and noted by the House of Lords.'.

  6.30 pm
  Mr. Streeter: Of all the changes agreed by the Government in Amsterdam, those set out in article 2, paragraphs 40 and 41 carry the most long-term significance. That may be why the Government have sought to curtail debate on those paragraphs. Nowhere in the treaty is Labour's negotiating failure at Amsterdam more clear; nowhere in the treaty is the great new Labour give-away more apparent than in the reforms to the appointment of the President of the Commission and new Commissioners from member states.
  Being composed of experts, the Committee will understand that, under the current arrangements, the President is appointed by common accord by member states after consulting the European Parliament, so the
  532
  power to appoint the President currently lies, quite properly, with member states. The Committee will be aware that, under Maastricht, the nomination must be unanimously agreed by the member states. That is an important power. We all recall one famous occasion when unanimity could not be reached because the Conservative Government were not afraid to stand alone in Europe to defend the national interest.
  Under Maastricht, each member state has an unfettered right to put forward its own nominee to become a Commissioner, although there is a duty to consult the President of the Commission. That, however, is simply consultation. Member states are free to ignore the President's views if they choose, which means that they can, in practice, appoint whom they want. That has been the position since the treaty of Rome. Every time a Conservative Government renegotiated the European treaties, we successfully defended the arrangement, but new Labour failed at its first attempt.
  All that will be changed: those important national powers were given away at Amsterdam. Under article 2, paragraphs 40 and 41, it is now proposed, first, that the European Parliament should have a veto over the agreed nominee for President of the Commission. In other words, the person whom all the member states want can be blocked by the European Parliament. That clearly takes away an important power from member states and gives it to the European Parliament. Secondly, it is proposed that the President should have a veto over the nominee for Commissioner of each member state. Thus, if the United Kingdom, France or any other member state wants a particular person as its Commissioner, the President of the Commission can say no.
  I detect that Labour Members are beginning to feel uncomfortable at that news, perhaps in disbelief that their Government have agreed to such a proposal. I am saddened to tell them that it gets worse still. Article 2, paragraph 41, says:
  "The Commission shall work under the political guidance of its President".
  The "political guidance of the President" is an apparently innocuous phrase in what many people say is an innocuous treaty, but like so much at Amsterdam, just a moment's reflection reveals the true picture.
  First, does the Minister think that it is in our national interest that no President of the Commission can be appointed unless the European Parliament agrees? The European Parliament can veto before breakfast, lunch or dinner until it gets the person it wants, and we can be sure that it wants a person who is unreservedly committed to its interventionist agenda. Secondly, does the Minister think that it is in our national interest that member states can no longer choose their own Commissioner?
  Now that the President is to have a veto, can he not effectively pick the other 19 Commissioners? On what criteria will selection by the President be based? What assurances are there in the treaty that the Commissioners who take office in 2000 will not all be drawn from one political party, from one point of view, or that all members will not share a common federalist view? None whatever.
  What assurances did the Minister seek on those issues? If he sought none, why not? If he did, why did he get none? The President can use his veto again and again to ensure the right result for himself and for the Commission,

  533
  but possibly the wrong result for Britain. Once the President of the Commission is appointed, the Commissioners must all work under his political guidance.
  Whichever way we look at the matter, it clearly amounts to a fundamental shift in the nature of the Commission. We are entitled to ask what possible justification there could be for agreeing those proposals. What justification is there for removing our right to decide who we want as our British Commissioner? Why has the independence of Commissioners been removed? What mischief are the proposals designed to correct? What was wrong with the present arrangements? The people of Britain require answers.
  The proposals are a significant step towards an overtly political Commission. They concentrate unprecedented powers in one individual's hands. In that sense, it is after all a typical new Labour solution, but it is bad for Britain and for Europe. Why did the Minister agree the proposals? Taken together with the extensions in qualified majority voting and the substantial additional powers for the European Parliament that we have already debated, the Minister must admit that the treaty he signed represents a significant shift from the nation state to the central institutions of the EU. What did he bring back in return? Absolutely nothing.
  I am afraid that there is even worse to come. Article 160, left unchanged by Amsterdam, provides:
  "If any Member of the Commission no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties…the Court of Justice may … compulsorily retire him."
  That is worthy of careful reflection. Clearly, article 2, paragraph 41 imposes a new condition on each Commissioner—to work under the political guidance of his President. If he, in the President's opinion, fails to toe the presidential line or shows too much independence of thought, or if he questions the President's political direction or disagrees with it, the Commission can apply to the European Court of Justice to remove him. If the Commissioner has failed to follow the President's political guidance, the court will have little option, under the treaty, but to remove him.
  In practice, those matters would not come to court, because the President would simply use all those powers to force a Commissioner's resignation. The significance of that is that the President has now acquired the power to hire and fire. That is a radical new departure. He now has the ability to gather around him political placemen and placewomen to do his bidding. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the treaty or my logic, I invite the Minister to intervene now and tell me. He does not do so.
  The whole balance of power in Europe has therefore shifted still further away from nation states and towards the centre—away from intergovernmental control and towards a political Commission, led by a political President. From experience, we can have little doubt that the direction set by such a body will be an increasingly centralised and inward-looking Europe. Just when Europe needs to become more flexible and outward-looking to survive in an increasingly competitive world, the Government have agreed to proposals that have the opposite effect.
  This is a major change, but it has been tucked away in the small print. It was not even mentioned by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 12 June 1997.
  534
  The Minister has a duty to tell us when he replies to this debate why he agreed to those proposals and to confirm that he has fully considered the implications for Britain and found them to be in the national interest.
  This group of amendments also raises the issue of flexibility. We welcome the inclusion of that concept in the treaty. Not for the first time, the whole of Europe agrees with a reform suggested by the Conservatives, often in the teeth of fierce opposition. We have always advocated the concept of a flexible Europe. Flexibility is essential if the European Union is to be enlarged successfully. A wider Europe makes the case for a flexible Europe more compelling. We cannot force a diverse, enlarged Europe of 25 member states into a rigid straitjacket of uniformity.
  We believe that flexibility must be carefully introduced following certain key principles, the most important of which is that any arrangement that allows groups of fewer than 15 member states to use Community institutions must be agreed by all. Sadly, the Amsterdam treaty does not grasp the essential point that any future projects must be agreed by all member states.
  Under the treaty, a group of member states can decide to go ahead with further integration in any area without the support of the full European Union. New article 5a provides that only those member states that want to take part in a new activity have any part in that decision. It is obvious that a new activity operated by just a few states could have significant implications for all member states, and should be sanctioned by all before it begins.
  There is provision for a veto similar to the so-called Luxembourg and Ioannina compromises. Does the Minister accept that, for the first time, that provision appears in the text of the treaty and not as a Council declaration? We would have dealt with the matter as a declaration, to ensure that the Council of Ministers alone and acting unanimously had the power to interpret the use of the veto.
  Having agreed to incorporate the form of words into the treaty for the first time, does the Minister not realise that he has opened the door to rulings from the European Court of Justice on the veto, and has given the court the power to overrule the use of that veto? I look forward to his response on that point.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that, as the Commission said, the arrangements under the Maastricht treaty for allowing other member states to go ahead with proposals for economic and monetary union amounted to the best form of flexibility yet devised? Does he agree that we should reflect on that, and do something about it?
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The difference is that economic and monetary union is within the exclusive competence of the European Union, whereas these provisions allow some member states to go beyond that.
  There are real concerns about the additional powers that are being given to the European Parliament and to the President of the Commission under paragraphs 40 and 41 of article 2. It is now clear beyond doubt that, in a number of vital areas, the Government failed the nation

  535
  at Amsterdam. I invite the Minister to answer all my questions, and to explain how on earth these changes could possibly be in the national interest.
  Mr. Cash: The issue I just raised goes to the heart of the amendments on flexibility. I secured an Adjournment debate on this matter about 18 months ago, so, having put my arguments against flexibility on that occasion, I do not need to delay the Committee now.
  My remarks are directed at the Government, as they have responsibility for the conduct of the treaty. What worries me is that flexibility—or variable geometry, as it is sometimes called—is a cop-out. The object of the exercise is to allow a legal framework to be created, so that institutional arrangements can be put in place for the Community as a whole as part of a legal instrument enforceable by the Court of Justice.
  Within that, with what I often refer to as weasel words, we can go for an opt-out or an opt-in, the object of which is to allow the other member states to go ahead on the assumption that, sooner or later, through pressure or after the passage of time, and faced with the problem of whether we remain outside the institutional procedures that have been created, we would have to catch up and join in.
  One point regarding the protocol and third stage of monetary union is not often appreciated. Although we had the right to opt out in the first place, under the protocol we have the right to opt in later on, as we have with other matters, such as immigration and visas.
  6.45 pm
  A common legal area and a new process are being created. It is not, as the Minister said, a matter of international agreements. I am astonished at the Minister's ignorance: he could not possibly justify such a statement—which he made twice in his speech on the previous amendment.
  A legal framework is being created: it has not been fully consummated yet. It is not merely partly on the way—it is substantially on the way: in many respects, it is already in place. The Minister knows that. Flexibility enables that process to continue, while pretending that the opt-out represents a reservation over the process. Theoretically, that is so, but in practice it is not a sustainable argument, and that is the problem.
  During the debate on the confidence motion on the Maastricht treaty, I made the point to our previous Prime Minister that, sooner or later, under the process that includes flexibility as it is now interpreted, we will have to renegotiate the treaties, go along with everything contained in them or get out altogether. That is a serious but avoidable problem.
  I agree with hon. Members who said in the previous debate that the process of flexibility is being allowed to go ahead, and no real restraint is being imposed on it. There are reservations and doubts, or so we are told, but in practice the whole thing is being allowed to go ahead.
  I invite the Government to consider the enormity of the problem. This process of salami slicing is going on the entire time. However, we are moving beyond thin slices to enormous chunks of our sovereignty being taken away from us, or being pooled with those of other countries and
  536
  put into a legal framework, which will create impossible difficulties for us in the future. That is why I am so resistant to the concept of flexibility.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on institutional changes. It is an outrage that the Commission will be given these powers, and that the President will, in effect, have the role of a political commissar, which is what it boils down to, because he will be accountable to no one. That is the worst concession made during the negotiations, because it is the ultimate concession. The process is undemocratic.
  Furthermore, under the common foreign and security policy, the high representative—I think that the deputy Secretary-General will be given that role—will be able to conduct foreign policy on the basis of so-called co-operation and on his own initiative. We should reflect on what happened in Bosnia, because that was a total and unmitigated disaster.
  In fact, the arrangement does not work. As I recall, Lord Owen—who was in the area for a long period, and was at the rock face when everything was going on—witnessed the absurdity of the attempts to enable the European Union to co-ordinate foreign policy through a high representative. As I have said, the whole business was an unmitigated disaster. The Americans and NATO had to come in to save the day.
  As I said earlier, my accusation is that the amendments represent a complete cop-out. We are kidding ourselves if we think for one minute that the arrangements in the amendments, and in the treaty, can possibly be justified. They are thoroughly undemocratic. They will not work. They will bring the whole European Union into a state of chaos within years. Otherwise, as is intended—the Minister knows this perfectly well—we shall end up with what I described earlier: the eventual creation of a country called Europe, for which these provisions are ultimately designed.
  Mr. David Heath: I wish to speak to new clause 17, which I tabled along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). First, however, let me say something about the amendments tabled with it.
  I listened carefully—as I always do—to the case made by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who spoke to his amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I still believe that he sees the Commissioners as delegates from national Governments. I prefer to see them as functionaries of the Council and the European Union—as, in effect, civil servants, working within the confines of settled policy and settled decisions; instigating policy, of course, but instigating policy for decisions by elected Members.
  I find it extraordinary that the view can be taken that a Commissioner can be mad, bad, incompetent or worse, and still cannot be removed on the recommendation of the President of the Commission, if the member state that sent the Commissioner there happens to believe that that person is acting in the interests of one nation. That, surely, is an abuse of the democratic process, rather than an underlining of its strength.
  I also listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's explanation of his support for moves towards greater flexibility—the so-called variable geometry, a concept that the Conservative party rightly instigated and followed

  537
  through. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to find reasons why he could not accept and, indeed, applaud a recommendation promoted by a previous British Government—a previous Conservative Government—which was now finding its way into a treaty obligation. His arguments struck me as spurious rather than founded in common sense.
  As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the amendments deal with the high representative—who is the Secretary-General of the Council, was appointed following a unanimous decision of the Council, and can act only within the compass of policies decided unanimously by the Council. In the amendments to which he did not speak, the hon. Gentleman argues against moves that increase the transparency of the Council. Our only criticism is that such moves do not go far enough: they are going in the right direction. I am not persuaded by those arguments, and would not support them if they were pressed to a vote.
  New clause 17 addresses one of the key omissions from the Amsterdam process and the treaty. The process did not address the institutional changes that are required for enlargement; it skirted around the problem, rather than meeting it head on. The wording of the treaty almost constitutes an admission of failure. We know that the protocol is there, and it must be returned to in a conference of member states. The new clause seeks to ensure that the British Government are clear about their intentions in regard to such negotiations.
  Of course, we do not intend to bind British Ministers in advance of negotiation. That would be foolish. We note, however, that the last Government were able to indicate the main heads of negotiation that they would pursue at the intergovernmental conference. We believe that it would be common sense and good practice for the new Government to take the same view. The special conference will have to tackle four key questions, some of which were mentioned earlier in the debate.
  When the first wave of enlargement takes place, the big member states will lose their second Commissioners: that is inevitable. How will the process be managed, and what will be the compensatory mechanism to ensure that those states retain influence in decision making? Let us look further ahead, to even more enlargement of the Union. What will happen to the Commission then? What will happen if, at some stage in the future, we have a European Union with 25 members? Will each have an individual Commissioner, and what jobs will those Commissioners do?
  The structure will become unwieldy and top-heavy. It is clearly sensible to establish some form of agreement at this stage about how such a development may take place, so that we do not have to keep coming back to conferences on institutional change. How will the votes in Council be re-weighted to reflect the new balance of members and the loss of the second Commissioners? We have heard indications from the Government that they have discussed that, but there has been no firm resolution in regard to the direction in which they are moving.
  The European Parliament currently has 626 Members and a cap of 700. If all the applicant countries gain admission to the European Union, who will lose seats—proportionally, in terms of the population—to maintain
  538
  the cap at 700? That question has not yet been dealt with, but there is clearly a de minimis requirement for some of the smaller states, if they are represented at all, to be over-represented in the European Parliament, just as some smaller communities are over-represented in the House of Commons in order to be represented in any meaningful way. We must find a mechanism for divesting some of the larger states of some of their European Parliament membership. That is not an easy process: it is not one in which we can engage without careful thought about the consequences.
  New clause 17 provides a mechanism enabling the British Government to make plain their negotiating objectives and their view on these important issues. It also provides an incentive to ensure that the new member conference will take place at an early stage, and with a sensible agenda that the British Government will effect through their presidency over the next six months. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the issues are being considered carefully, that there is an agenda that he can share with the House and that he will, in due course, make the British Government's position plain.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I should like to restrict myself to what I believe the Minister will refer to as a narrow discussion of what he will probably call a narrow point. The Minister's view is, presumably, that a murderer armed with a stiletto is engaged merely in a narrow action of piercing the heart.
  I shall restrict myself to amendment No. 6, which deals with article 2, paragraph 41, which in turn relates to what used to be called article 163 and is now article 219, which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has not only alluded to, but admirably exposed. I should like to take his discussion a little further.
  A new Member of the House often feels impatient when others are called ahead of him. When you, Mr. Lord, called the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I felt impatient, but your wisdom was demonstrated because from the hon. Gentleman's speech I learnt the necessity of making my own.
  Mr. MacShane: Come to the point.
  Mr. Letwin: I am coming very much to the point.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made the Committee believe that he preferred to see the Commission as functionaries. The Commission, which is dealt with in article 219, is described in article 211, which has existed since the treaty of Rome, and is given four functions, the third of which is that it should have its own power of decision. There has never been a body of civil servants on the face of the earth who have been given their own power of decision; nor have they been asked to deliver opinions or initiate legislation. The Commission has not been, was not conceived as and is not intended to be a mere civil service. On the contrary, it is one of the fundamental pillars of the European Union; its nature and how it conducts its affairs are critical to the development of the European Community and the European Union as a whole. [Interruption.] I am surprised that Labour Members are reacting to that as if it were a controversial statement; I am quoting almost verbatim from Monet, who made that point very clearly in his original propositions.

  539
  The amendment deals with the article in which the treaty gives the President the right to guide politically the actions of the Commission. What does that mean? I took the trouble to investigate the texts in the other languages, to check whether the English was giving us a false impression, and I found that it does a little. The other languages make it clear that "policy leadership"—the most accurate translation of the German—or "policy orientation"—the most accurate translation of the French—is being given.
  The article introduced by the treaty is saying that the President of the Commission is to give directions about the policy to be undertaken by the Commissioners. To return to the observations of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, it is odd for a group of people who are, in his view, extensively civil servants, to have a policy orientation or to be driven in a particular policy direction. What is the article building up to? What is the intention of giving the President policy direction over the Commission?
  7 pm
  In order to understand that question, we must refer not to Monet or Schumann, but to Spinelli, who spent much time thinking seriously about this issue. Were the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) present, his long disquisitions on the views of Spinelli would drive him to the same conclusions as I have reached. In 1972, Spinelli said that
  "the Commission, the central driving force of the Community"—
  not, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, a civil servant—
  "has been unable to play its full part"
  because of
  "the absence of a political image".
  Spinelli continued:
  "successive Commissioners have only at rare moments been able to pursue a line of action resulting from a political choice".
  It seems clear that the article is intended to remedy what Mr. Spinelli saw as that defect and to allow the Commission, not on rare occasions, but continuously, to pursue a line of action resulting from a political choice—in particular, the political choice of the President of the Commission.
  Why should those framing the treaty desire to give the President the ability to drive forward the Commission and to make political choices on a continuous basis? Spinelli tells us; it is interesting that in 1972 he foresaw the article—that suggests that it did not arise by accident. Spinelli tells us that if that objective were to be achieved, the
  "President could devote himself entirely to the direction of the college, to political contacts, and to prospective political developments."
  He also said that that was necessary
  "if the Commission is to take an effective part in the formation of a political Europe."
  That is what underlies the article. The intention is to give the President of the Commission the ability to make the Commission a driving force towards the formation of a political Europe. I cannot see what that could conceivably mean, other than that the Commission is to be used by a President to drive towards the creation of a
  540
  nation state, a state that governs the politics of Europe. It is extremely difficult to put any other construction on the article, or its intentions.
  We must take this a step further. It must be that if a President is chosen in the manner suggested in article 2, paragraph 40, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon referred in the early part of his speech, that method of selection will be thought inadequate by the peoples of Europe once it becomes clear that the President is acting as a driving force, through the Commission, towards political ends. It is too undemocratic for the President to be selected merely by the member states.
  What is the end of the process? We do not have to refer to Spinelli or the Government for an answer, as we have a higher authority. Mr. Delors made the agenda quite clear. The President having been given the power, the agenda is to speak of the democratic deficit and then to assert that it is necessary to elect the President directly. We have a clear stepping stone, a sort of scala mobile. As we move up the staircase, we shall discover ourselves being remorselessly drawn by the logic towards the direct election of a President in a way that exactly mirrors the position of the President of the United States, who gives political guidance to a Cabinet which he chooses and which he can cashier in order to further the interests of a nation state. That is where the article is taking us.
  I do not think that this is an apocalyptic vision: it is based on the theories and doctrines exposed by the leading proponents of the European Union on the continent of Europe. If we in the House accept this part of the treaty, we are signing up to that process. I fear; I prophesy; I am wholly confident that some years from now when these things have happened, we in the House will be told that we accepted the logic because we accepted the article.
  Assuming my Front-Bench team asks me to do so, I shall go into the Lobby tonight with more fervour than at any time since I entered the House and, possibly, with more fervour than at any time in the future.
  Mr. John Hayes: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He spoke of the necessity of speaking after hearing the contribution of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath); given the alacrity of my hon. Friend's remarks, I follow him with some trepidation.
  I wish to draw particular attention to the nature of the institutions with which the group of amendments deals. Those institutions lack democratic and political legitimacy. How do we test this assertion? First, do they enjoy popular support? Secondly, are they structures that deliver political accountability? Thirdly, are they rooted in coherent political traditions?
  Democratic support for institutions must be founded, first, on a degree of comprehension and on some suggestion of empathy. To take a parochial example, parishes, local authorities and even this Parliament itself depend for their democratic legitimacy not only on an understanding of what they do, but also on a feeling of empathy with and sympathy for them as bodies. I suggest that the European institutions fail this test comprehen-sively; people neither understand nor care what they do. The problem was referred to earlier with particular respect to the turnout in European elections, but any measurement—polls, surveys or any other test of public opinion—suggests that my assertion is close to the truth.

  541
  Secondly, I suggest that the European institutions are unaccountable because of a mismatch between the exercise of political power and the expression of popular will. There is no better example of this than the Commission. It typifies the paradox because it is not an organisation of functionaries, as suggested by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, but it is an organisation that takes political decisions entirely detached from the exercise of popular will.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset suggested that some democratic legitimacy might be considered to be offered to the Commission in terms of its relationship with and communications with the President. As my hon. Friend so accurately pointed out, however, the President himself currently lacks democratic legitimacy. My hon. Friend suggested that to give the President that necessary legitimacy—Labour Members might believe that my hon. Friend is being fanciful, but I believe that he is being pertinent—there will ultimately be a call for him to be directly elected. The European institutions, therefore, also fail the test of accountability.
  The third test of legitimacy is that the European institutions must have some connection with the history of the nations that they represent. There must be a sense of evolutionary, democratic political development. The European institutions have no such connection to history; they are not part of an unbroken tradition. They are the creations of a blueprint; a dream; a big idea. They are not born of the pragmatism that the Minister recommended when he talked about the need for a flexible, forward-looking and imaginative view of international affairs—far from it.
  The problem with the institutions is well illustrated by new clause 17, a point to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome drew attention. Paradoxically, the very flexibility and pragmatism that are necessary for enlargement run entirely contrary to the rigidity of institutions that jealously guard their existing power and vie for more power among themselves. This rigidity in Europe will make the imaginative, pragmatic view that the Minister recommended and to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also referred impossible.
  I assert that this treaty goes no way towards dealing with these fundamental problems. One could say that the problems are inherent in the European institutions, but one would have hoped that the treaty would at least have taken steps towards addressing the issues. The treaty fails by that measure, too.
  Against that background, we heard the Minister comparing the European Union to an international treaty organisation. We must remember that the EU is a lawful political structure, which sees itself as being constitutionally valid and, in its most extreme form, as a sovereign political superstructure. How then can we compare the EU to the International Monetary Fund, to NATO or to any other international treaty organisation entered into freely by sovereign, independent nations? It is a farcical comparison, which is not worthy of a Minister. In fact, the comparison displays either a remarkable lack of understanding of the subject or an attempt to mislead not the Committee, because the
  542
  Committee is far too wise to be misled in such a way, but the British people. For all those reasons, I support the amendments.
  Mr. Swayne: I shall be extremely brief because I have only one point to make. I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the way in which all the different elements in the treaty are of a piece. When we discussed the previous group of amendments, we saw how the right of co-decision given to an assembly makes it a Parliament. To be a real Parliament, a people must be found for that Parliament to represent.
  In this group of amendments, we see exactly the same process in train. Powers are given to the President which, for the first time, make him politically responsible for the operation of his Commissioners—in effect, his Cabinet. By giving him political direction over them, we shall make him a President in the sense in which we ordinarily understand the word. The search must, therefore, be on for a state or country for him to be President of. That is the process by which all the different elements of this super-state are gradually falling into place.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I shall deal first with new clause 17. I have some sympathy with the views expressed, but I cannot accept the new clause because the requirements laid down in it would be too rigid and would not permit the British Government of the day sufficient scope for negotiating in any institutional matters that were before the European Union. On such matters, it is essential not only to know where one is going, but to know that there are a number of different avenues that could be followed to get there. It would be a little counter-productive to say too much about that in advance. In addition, unless there was already a relevant legislative provision, anything agreed under the scope of the new clause would require legislation, either primary or secondary, depending on the nature of the business.
  As a general principle, we want to see an extension of scrutiny, and we have made our position clear on that. I made it clear when I appeared before the Select Committee on European Legislation that in principle it would be helpful to see further scrutiny of legislation under both the second and third pillars. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will shortly make an announcement on a wider range of issues. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will accept my assurances on that point.
  The other issues raised in the debate include the question of flexibility. The flexibility provisions were widely debated, as the Opposition will realise from their time in government, and the matter was discussed over many months in the IGC negotiations. I was personally involved in dealing with those aspects before the Amsterdam meeting, and they were again dealt with at Amsterdam. All along, the principle that I adopted in negotiation—I hope that the Opposition accept this principle as essential—was that flexibility might be required in some instances, but that it should not be used as an excuse for breaking up the single market. The integrity of the single market and moving forward in the single market are extremely important for a trading nation such as Britain. It is very much in our interests that that should be the case, and we do not want flexibility to undermine that.

  543
  We would also not want flexibility to be used as a method of making the circumstances that pertained in countries that wished to accede to the European Union different from the circumstances that pertained in countries that were existing members. If it is necessary for there to be a period of transition, the transitional arrangements should be quite separate from any general flexibility provisions and should be dealt with as part of the negotiations for the accession of those countries.
  I do not believe that flexibility should be used widely. In the original IGC talks, there was a long list of circumstances in which flexibility could not be used, and it was subsequently agreed to outline in principle the circumstances in which it could be used. Those uses are limited, and I do not think that flexibility will be used greatly in the near future.
  I should remind the Committee of the safeguards built in by the Government in the IGC negotiations. I do not know, but I presume that the previous Government might have wanted to win some of the same safeguards.
  The first safeguard is that any flexibility must involve a majority of member states. Secondly, it can be used only as a last resort measure. Thirdly, non-participants' interests are fully protected. Fourthly, flexibility must be open to all who subsequently wish to join. Fifthly, flexible actions will be transparent. Sixthly, non-participants in a flexible action may attend and take part in discussions. Seventhly, flexibility must not distort competition or restrict trade, discriminate between nationals of member states or affect existing Community policies.
  Eighthly, and critically, although flexibility proposals can be agreed by majority voting, the Government ensured in the Amsterdam negotiations that the clauses will be subject to the emergency brake—the veto mechanism—that allows any member state that opposes a specific flexibility proposal to veto it by bringing it back to the Council.
  Those safeguards deal with tightly defined circumstances, and they therefore have my full support as part of the treaty package. I hope that the Committee will accept that and reject the amendments that would undermine those safeguards.
  Mr. Cash: Does the Minister accept that although the consequences of the concept of flexibility will be to allow the process to move forward as a legal framework, by accepting those who do not wish to join with the others on certain functions, the net result of the process will be to advance the integration process, which—as with economic and monetary union, as the European Commission has stated—has always been the intention?
  Mr. Henderson: I should hope that everything in the treaty is movement forwards—from Europe's previous political and economic circumstances, to anticipating the circumstances that we may face in the future. Flexibility will undoubtedly be part of integration in some circumstances. The single market is part of the concept of integration, and it is very much in the United Kingdom's interests, which is why the Government support it.
  Mr. Streeter: Before the Minister leaves the issue of flexibility, will he confirm that the point I made about the
  544
  European Court of Justice having the final say in interpreting whether a member state has validly exercised the emergency brake or veto procedure is correct?
  Mr. Henderson: The European Court of Justice will have authority to intervene, should it be asked to do so, to ensure that the rules on the flexibility clause have been properly applied. That will be its remit, and it is a very sensible involvement of the court. If the Union does not follow those rules for some reason and if the safeguards have not been guaranteed, the court will be able to judge the matter.
  The second issue dealt with by this group of amendments is the structure of the office of the President and of the Commissioners. It has been said, especially by Conservative Back Benchers, that this is the thin end of a wedge, which will lead to the direct election of the President, who will be the executive and President of the European Union state, under whom the Commissioners will act as his Cabinet. Those concerns reflect an unreal world.
  Opposition Front Benchers, who were in government, will know how the European Union works, will be aware of the Commission's role in relation to the Council of Ministers and will realise the resolve of nations other than the United Kingdom to ensure that sovereignty is retained except when we agree to pool it, to influence decisions. They will know also that, on crucial decisions, unanimity is required, and that the Commission cannot force through any proposal regardless of the views of the Council or a nation that is a Council member.
  The changes are very much in Britain's interests. They are about the nations of the European Union agreeing on who will be the President, and about the European Parliament also giving its approval. Those requirements can be justified on the ground of democracy. Nevertheless, I am a practical person, and I cannot foresee a situation in which the European Parliament would reject someone as President if the Council had agreed on who he or she should be. It is not a realistic scenario.
  The European Parliament will, of course, want to express its view on who is President. However, as Members of the European Parliament come from the same countries and political parties as Council members, I do not think that their views will be very much out of line with the majority Council view. The fear is therefore unrealistic.
  Currently, states nominate a Commissioner, who then takes his or her post. Although it has not happened in the eight or nine months that the Government have been involved in the process, and although it does not happen with British Commissioners—who have been very co-operative and helpful, backed the President and seriously undertaken their responsibilities to the Commission and to the Union—some Commissioners do not always take the Commission or European Union view and grind their own axe. Some Commissioners have a view of their own and go off on their own track, regardless of what might be the Commission or the Council policy.
  The changes are intended to minimise those risks, so that those who are appointed as Commissioners will work with the President in undertaking the Commission's

  545
  responsibilities. The clause will do nothing more than that. It is necessary to modernise and to give the Commission greater impact and effectiveness.
  Mr. Hayes: I should like to draw out from the Minister the implications of his comments. He said that some Commissioners grind their own axe, by which he presumably meant that they stand up for their own national interests. Therefore, is he not really saying that the changes minimise opportunities to defend national interests within the institutions and deliver a more communautaire perspective of Europe, which will lead to the type of contradiction that I tried to describe in my earlier comments?
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has returned to political theorising, because he has not described how the Commission works. When Commissioners express idiosyncratic views, the views tend to deal more with party politics than with nation states. The changes are to combat a Commissioner pursuing his or her own track, rather than following the consensus agreed after all the arguments. The changes will not guarantee that that will happen, but they will encourage the Commission to work as a body and give it greater unity and effectiveness.
  I recommend that the Committee should reject this group of amendments.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate. I am sure that he read the Amsterdam treaty before he signed it—I certainly do not suggest that he did not—and that he understood the words in it. As I listen to his responses to our debates, however, I increasingly believe that he has not thought through the long-term implications of what he has signed. While the Government are undertaking constitutional reform on domestic issues without considering the long-term implications of unstitching our Union, the Minister has agreed matters at Amsterdam without considering their long-term implications.
  The Opposition understand that, ultimately, it is for member states to decide by unanimity the big issues in Europe, but we would be blind if we did not realise that the Commission drives the European Union forward and sets the agenda. The Commission is very much more than the civil service described by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—who will be delighted not to have to correct my pronunciation of his constituency.
  I should like to make two points, because the Minister's reply to the debate was again unsatisfactory. If, as he says, the European parliamentary veto over the appointment of a President could never be used—he said that it was inconceivable that the Parliament would set aside the unanimous view of member states—why on earth was it written into the treaty? Why are the words in the treaty if they will never be used? Of course they could be used and there are no safeguards against their being used promiscuously.
  546
  Secondly, it is an alarming development that the President of the Commission can gather around himself political placemen and placewomen to set off on a frolic of their own. The Minister has failed to give me the assurances that I was seeking.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The hon. Gentleman should understand that before the President can agree to a Commissioner, that Commissioner has to be nominated by a nation state.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point, but it does not address the point that a nation state can nominate a Commissioner, but the President can reject him. The President has an unlimited veto.
  I appreciate that we are now coming up against the limit imposed on us by the cruel guillotine that is clearly stifling debate on an important group of amendments. We do not find the Minister's answers satisfactory. We believe that he has not thought through the long-term implications of what he has signed, and we intend to press the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 132, Noes 260.

  Division No. 130]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gibb, Nick

  Amess, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Arbuthnot, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baldry, Tony

  Gray, James

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian

  Blunt, Crispin

  Greenway, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Boswell, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hammond, Philip

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayes, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Horam, John

  Burns, Simon

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cash, William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Collins, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cran, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Leigh, Edward

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Letwin, Oliver

  Duncan, Alan

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Faber, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fraser, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Garnier, Edward

  Malins, Humfrey

  547

  Maples, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Syms, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Jonn M (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Prior, David

  Walter, Robert

  Randall, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Twk"b'ry)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wilshire, David

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Allan, Richard

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cotter, Brian

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cox, Tom

  Austin, John

  Crausby, David

  Baker, Norman

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darvill, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benton, Joe

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blizzard, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fisher, Mark

  Brake, Tom

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burden, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gapes, Mike

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grant, Bernie

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Gunnell, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coaker, Vermon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  548

  Heppell, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hill, Keith

  Oaten, Mark

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hope, Phil

  Olner, Bill

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Ingram, Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rendel, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Ruane, Chris

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Khabra, Piara S

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Salter, Martin

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  Laxton, Bob

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lepper, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Levitt, Tom

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lock, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McCabe, Steve

  Soley, Clive

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Spellar, John

  McDonnell, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McFall, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  McNulty, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  MacShane, Denis

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Todd, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Touhig, Don

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Trickett, Jon

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Michael, Alun

  Tyler, Paul

  Milburn, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Moffatt, Laura

  Wallace, James

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Watts, David

  Mudie, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  549

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wood, Mike

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Willis, Phil

  Wnght, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Willis, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ms Bridget Prentice.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 1, line 13, at end insert 'except Article 2(3)(b)'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 9.)'.
  No. 29, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 10)'.
  No. 33, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 15)'.
  New clause 1—United Kingdom accession to Schengen Acquis—
  .—No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Communities of a request from the United Kingdom to take part in some or all of the provisions of the Schengen acquis under Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union unless Her Majesty's Government has laid before Parliament a draft of the request, together with a statement affirming that its request extends to Gibraltar and will not be pursued unless accepted by the Council without qualification.'.
  New clause 28—Border controls: implications for Gibraltar—
  ".—The opt-in to border controls pursuant to Protocol 4 to the Treaty of Amsterdam shall be exercisable by Her Majesty's Government only when each House of Parliament has come to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the implications of the voting arrangements for such opt-in for the people of Gibraltar.'.
  Mr. Cash: Thank you for calling my amendment, Mr. Lord. I also thank Madam Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means for selecting the amendments in my name.
  I have grave reservations about the provisions to which my amendments refer. The Minister woefully failed to address flexibility in detail in the previous debate. It is at the heart of this group. We are on a slippery slope. The Government's negotiated opt-out on border controls and Schengen is another example of allowing the other member states to go ahead with the process and then claiming that we have secured a tremendous advantage.
  I accept the distinction between the opt-out for monetary union, which is an on-going process of integration that continues to cause extreme embarrassment and difficulty and should have been vetoed at Maastricht, and this opt-out. There is a physical difference between us and the rest of Europe on border controls. Leaving aside the channel tunnel, I accept, as do the Irish Government, that being an island puts us in a different situation from the other member states. In that respect, the border controls opt-out is better than that for economic
  550
  and monetary union. However, the arrangements presuppose that we will be able to opt in later. Although that would be subject to unanimity, it is still a serious failure by the Government. They are clearly keeping open the possibility of opting in. Given their European philosophy, I believe that they intend to do so in due course.
  7.45 pm
  The Government have displayed considerable subtlety and, if I may say, some deceit in their approach to the issues. They know that the issue of border controls is contentious, as is immigration and asylum. They know that conceding the idea of the removal of border controls in the treaty would have been trespassing on dangerous territory. The negotiations that were being conducted by the previous Government with a view to ensuring that we would have an opt-out were well intentioned, although, for the reasons that I have already given, I believe that we should have shown more deliberate intention and action. I like to believe that a Conservative Government would have vetoed the Amsterdam treaty, including the provisions that we are discussing. I have heard it said that that was our intention. I sincerely hope that it was. I was also glad to note that we once mooted a referendum on the treaty. That idea has now been disposed of, as far as I can tell. There is not much enthusiasm for the new clause proposing a referendum.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about referendums, will he say that he is very disappointed that the Conservative party has changed its position? Why does he think that that has happened?
  Mr. Cash: The Conservative party is committed to the idea of a referendum on the single currency, for which I campaigned during the Maastricht debates in 1993 and with my Referendum Bill shortly before the general election. I am delighted that the Government have also been forced to accept a referendum.
  I have expressed before my views on a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty alone to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. My views are, in a sense, not dissimilar to those expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the previous group of amendments. We need a review of the whole process and there should be a referendum on the treaty on European union as a whole.
  Mr. Gapes rose—
  Mr. Cash: I shall not give way just yet because I want to finish my argument.
  For reasons that I have already given, it is illogical for us to allow the process of integration to continue, nibbling opt-outs and opt-ins here and there in the desperate hope that, like King Canute, we shall somehow be able to prevent the onward flood of the Rhine, as Chancellor Kohl described it in 1990.
  The fact is that there is a total intention. We are kidding ourselves with the opt-outs if we believe that we shall be able to stem the flood, and we are creating more and more difficulties. The Amsterdam treaty, in particular, makes the position more difficult.

  551
  There is only one answer, and clearly it is not the Government's answer. It is to renegotiate the treaties. My suggestion in the amendment that I tabled on renegotiation was that a conference of all member states should be held—as should have happened with the intergovernmental conference that led to Amsterdam—to review not only provisions such as Schengen, border controls, immigration and so on, but all the treaties. The conference should make a judgment about the state of the Union, decide where it has been going wrong and then, by a process of review and renegotiation as proposed in my new clause, make a European Union or Community capable of working in the interests of all the member states. That would also avoid the difficulties inherent in opt-out arrangements such as those before us now.
  The idea that we are not intended to be included in the areas of the opt-outs at a later stage is somewhat naive, to say the least, especially when one considers the fact that the opt-out from the social chapter was accompanied by provisions in a schedule saying that we would have to bear the administrative costs of running the operation when it went ahead. Of course, the same applies to other provisions in connection with the opt-outs.
  With that general point in mind, and having expressed my grave reservations about the nature of the opt-outs—or opt-ins, whichever one cares to call them—I shall now deal with the question of what is inherent in the provisions before us. During the negotiations and discussions, much of the argument turned on the interpretation of article 7a, which had caused trouble and on which the European Commission had strong opinions.
  The Commission and other member states believed article 7a committed them all to work towards the abolition of internal border controls for both Community and third-country nationals. However in 1986, at the time of the Single European Act, the United Kingdom had negotiated a declaration consistent with what was understood at that time. I must admit that the declaration was not legally binding.
  Under the previous Government the United Kingdom consistently refused to accept the Commission's interpretation. I would have thought that the wording of the declaration was pretty clear:
  "Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques".
  However, after the intergovernmental conference we discovered that the negotiations, including the Government's acceptance of the Commission's interpretation, took us beyond that. The Government may argue that they established and obtained an exception for the United Kingdom, and that Ireland did the same for itself, but in fact they allowed the process to go ahead in line with the Commission's interpretation. For that they are woefully in default.
  In article 63 there is a provision with respect to the five-year timetable for new measures on immigration into the Union, including those affecting refugees, displaced persons and the granting of asylum, which says that there should be
  "a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons".
  552
  That is accompanied by a further provision in article 64 which says:
  "This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security."
  Anybody can see that there is an inherent conflict between those two provisions. It is clear that the legal significance of that quotation from article 64 is not intended to contradict the ultimate commitment to abolish internal border controls. For that reason too, the Government are in default.
  The Government have put a plausible but spurious spin on the negotiations that they conducted. Indeed, on 18 June when the Prime Minister came back from the intergovernmental conference he stated:
  "We have the power within the treaty to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us going in".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 319.]
  That was about the provisions in respect of the new title on immigration, asylum and visas.
  Moreover, the Government's opt-out was entirely contrary to their declared policy of having no permanent opt-outs. In October 1995 I was rather encouraged when I heard the Labour party in opposition saying:
  "we reject permanent opt-outs or 'variable geometry'".
  Yet we have just heard the Minister advocating a policy of flexibility that is precisely the reverse of his party's 1995 position.
  I have opposed the concepts of flexibility and variable geometry for reasons that I gave during the debate on the previous group of amendments, and I make the same point in connection with the group before us: it is a slippery slope. In my judgment the policy is one of weakness and appeasement, because it will eventually lead to our being put in an impossible position.
  That policy has already led us into an impossible position on monetary union. The European Commission was right to describe it as the best form of flexibility yet devised. None the less, what the Prime Minister said on 18 June was totally wrong, because the opt-outs have to be decided by unanimity.
  That gives any of the member states the right to veto future opt-ins, so although the Government have the right to exercise a veto on future opt-ins—for Ireland, say—at the same time other countries will be in a position to veto our going in.
  To make the situation even worse, we have allowed the others to go ahead already, so in many respects we shall get the worst of both worlds. I must make my point yet again, because the fact that for the time being we have what I prefer to call an exception, gives us at least a breathing space and an opportunity to renegotiate, so that we can have the comprehensive review of the state of the Union that is not only necessary but—I believe, as I see what is going on in Europe now, despite all the talk and claptrap—increasingly essential.
  Sooner or later Europe will find that the British people will not accept the arrangements. We know that there is serious disquiet in other countries too. The problem is that the task of giving expression to that disquiet, and of revealing the uncertainty and unsettling nature of the

  553
  arrangements, is not helped by the lack of attention given to the matters that we are discussing today in the media, including much of the British press.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making some very important points. Do not the influx of Kurdish refugees into Italy and the substantial influxes of Czech and Slovak refugees—largely of Romany origin—into the Federal Republic and on to the UK demonstrate the grave threats that large movements of population pose to internal social harmony within the member states of the European Union? A number of Governments of the Union are clearly of the opinion that the Schengen arrangements cannot work and potentially pose a real menace to their societies.
  Mr. Cash: That is true, and the Albanian situation in Italy last year makes that point. There is no point in people who are full of optimism and idealism, which is wholly misplaced, constructing legal frameworks in the belief that somehow we will end up with a single political union—in my judgment, one country—by taking down all border controls, and then, in the context of enlargement, imagining that we will not have floods of people coming in to take advantage of what they see as a honeypot. That will cause great civil unrest.
  8 pm
  Those are my reasons why the arrangements for enlargement will cause so much difficulty. If we are to continue to exercise a degree of sensible discretion over the people who are allowed to come in, things should stay as they are now. We should retain stability.
  My objections to the provisions are not merely that they are the slippery slope to flexibility, but that we will be affected and contaminated by the civil unrest which I believe will visit the other countries when they are affected by influxes of refugees within the external borders that will be created around the new European entity called "Europe". That entity will be one legal area as well.
  There is a proposal in directive 23 to create what is known as a corpus juris which would have the most dramatic consequences for the legal systems of the countries concerned. It would invade domestic jurisdiction with respect to extradition, habeas corpus and trial by jury. I would be departing from the central provisions of the amendments if I went into all those matters, but the Minister knows what I am talking about. He knows that this is a serious proposal and although it is not incorporated in the treaty at this juncture, it is all part of the thrust.
  The reason why those involved want to bring down the borders is that they want to create one country. It is not just a matter of the free movement of goods, or anything like that. These provisions concern the freedom of persons—but which persons?
  Not only was the Prime Minister entirely wrong in his interpretation of the proposals at the IGC, but the Foreign Secretary had to admit that there had been a misunderstanding, as he conceded in November last year. The Spanish Prime Minister moved an amendment early in the morning during the negotiations which meant that
  554
  opt-ins were subject to unanimity. We do not know what was on their minds at the time, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—and, no doubt, their advisers—must have nodded off.
  Unfortunately—I suspect that other hon. Members will want more of an explanation of this with respect to Gibraltar—the effect of the amendment was to give Spain the ability to insist on concessions on Gibraltar if the British Government ever decided to exercise the opt-in. In other words, it would be able to exercise the veto over us because unanimity is needed to allow the process to continue. I suspect that those more expert in that area will explain that.
  Mr. MacShane: That has nothing to do with Schengen.
  Mr. Cash: I hear the parliamentary private secretary muttering from a sedentary position that I have somehow departed from Schengen. It is quite astonishing that when we are talking about the removal of border controls—and about Gibraltar in particular—he should even consider raising objections. This matter is of grave concern to the people of Gibraltar.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Have not these blackmailing tactics been used effectively by the Spanish before; particularly at the Edinburgh summit, where they said that unless they gained access to the Irish box and gained greatly enhanced arrangements for their fishing fleet, they would not allow enlargement to go ahead as previously envisaged?
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes not only a good point on fishing, but an extremely good general point about the extent to which a country wishing to defend its national interest must be prepared to exercise the veto. It is the kind of arrangement currently under discussion where I believe the veto should have been used. We hear that the Dutch are threatening to use the veto with respect to the prospective entry of Italy into monetary union.
  Mr. Doug Henderson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister shakes his head. He knows more about this than me—I only know what I have read in the newspapers. It has certainly been circulated that that is the case.
  The group of amendments raises questions about the validity of opt-outs or opt-ins and their worth, and I have shown that they are not worth much when we are dealing with the question of Gibraltar. I have grave differences with some members of my own party on this matter, as some Labour Members have differences of opinion with their colleagues. However, the 1971 White Paper said clearly that it was essential that we retained our sovereignty and the veto so that we could exercise it in our national interests. The interesting thing is that it went on to say that to do otherwise would imperil the very fabric of the Community.
  The retention of the veto is regarded—as the Spanish understood—as a means of managing to preserve one's national interests. I am not saying that I agree with the Spanish, but they were smart enough to make sure that they did not lose out. By going for opt-outs as the second-best option and by a policy of appeasement and flexibility, we have ended up prejudicing our position and we are left swinging in the wind.

  555
  The other matters which arise in the context of this group of amendments include article 68, with respect to the European Court of Justice. Normally, being a part of the treaty establishing the European Community would mean that the ECJ would have jurisdiction. However, article 68 makes a substantial change. It modifies article 177, which deals with references by national courts to the ECJ for preliminary rulings on matters relating to Community law. Now, instead of references being able to go through the lower courts, only the highest national courts will be entitled to make references. I do not know if it is specified what the "highest national court" means. It could mean—although I am open to correction—the House of Lords, and that would be a serious matter.
  I would like to hear from the Minister about that: is it intended that the highest national court should be only the House of Lords—after all, Factortame was initiated there—and that the other courts, such as Queen's Bench, should be excluded? There are procedural rules that would enable us, if we so wished, to initiate actions that could have direct applicability. If my concerns are justified, there could be a serious inhibition of the rights of people in this country to initiate action, because people cannot simply walk into the House of Lords and ask it to make a reference.
  I have not heard that point made before, and I am not absolutely certain of my ground, but I am entirely sure that it is a matter that needs careful consideration because of the way in which article 68 is formulated, and that this is the time to do it. I hope that the Minister will have an answer for me by the end of this debate.
  Furthermore, not only are the highest national courts the only ones entitled to make references, but they must do so when they consider that a European Court of Justice ruling is necessary to enable a judgment to be given.
  That takes us back to section 2, I believe, of the European Communities Act 1972. It is certainly true that under that legislation we are obliged to give effect to judgments of the European Court, but article 68 puts the position the other way round: it is not only a matter of whether, as a result of due process of law, a provision ends up in the European Court; as I read it, an obligation is imposed on the national courts to go to the European Court. That could lead to some extremely expensive and difficult situations that would otherwise have been avoidable.
  Article 68 is an "Open, sesame". Instead of our being able to decide, as the previous Government sometimes rightly did, that we do not need to refer a matter to the European Court, it appears that the presumption is being reversed. With the obligation on a court to make the reference where it is deemed necessary, it will be extremely liable to make such a reference. That should have been thoroughly analysed and dealt with in the treaty.
  A great deal of criticism has been heaped on article 68 by the United Kingdom-based Immigration Law Practitioners Association. I do not agree with its conclusions, because it would prefer more movement towards allowing people to enter the country willy-nilly, but it takes an objective view about the article, and says:
  "In view of the length of time which it takes for a case to make its way to a court of final instance in any Member State, this means that we can expect at least five years of major legal uncertainty in this field."
  556
  The association specialises in European law, and I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to assess its statement, but I hope that it has had a satisfactory answer from the Government.
  The new title, because it is a separation out of the original third pillar, has brought such matters into Community competence, and therefore, for the first time, within the aegis of the Court of Justice. It also has the overall effect, which I deplore, of increasing the influence of the Court of Justice over the national courts. I do not know what the reasoning behind that is. It is a retrograde step.
  Every time that we examine such treaties, we find that almost all the concessions are running in one direction. Everything is a concession to more and more jurisdiction by the Court of Justice and more and more administrative controls by the European Commission; and so it goes forward inexorably.
  The other provisions that cause me concern add up, in a nutshell, to the creation of a new border arrangement that will have extremely detrimental effects on the rest of Europe and that, in my judgment, will also have an extremely detrimental effect on the United Kingdom, because the cumulative uncertainty and instability that they will create will ultimately damage all the member states.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I want to speak mainly to new clause 1 and, coincidentally, to new clause 28, which relate to Gibraltar. When the parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), and I visited Gibraltar with some other hon. Members last autumn, as the guests of the Gibraltar Government, the real democratic deficit that exists for Gibraltar came home to me. That, in a sense, is why I am standing here today: there is nobody else to articulate the Gibraltar people's concern about the implication of the articles relating to the Schengen acquis.
  I do not want to rake over old coals or to refer to how we got into this position, which I have done on several previous occasions both in the Chamber and in the Foreign Affairs Committee, but clearly there is a need to table the new clause so as to probe the Minister on how he intends to ensure that the interests of the people of Gibraltar are protected, not only for as long as he holds office but in relation to his successors, be they Labour, Tory or whatever.
  People may ask what all the fuss is about, given that we do not intend to sign up to Schengen. That may be the position at the moment, but it could change. I am a pro-European, but I join company with those who are opposed to Europe in believing that there will inexorably be a move for us to sign up, wholly or in part, to some aspects of Schengen in the foreseeable future. It may be in the next decade or in the next score years, but I believe that, as sure as night turns into day, a United Kingdom Government will find that they have to sign up to some of it.
  Under the treaty as it is, that Government will have to seek the unanimity of the other states to sign up to the acquis, and it seems to me pretty certain that Spain will exercise its veto in relation not to the United Kingdom

  557
  of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland along with Gibraltar.
  The present Government have closed down the option to go in, having given an undertaking that they will not surrender the interests of the people of Gibraltar, but I am not confident that future Governments, whatever their political complexion, would not sacrifice the people of Gibraltar if they considered that it was in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole to go into Schengen. That is the great problem that we face. All too often, successive Governments of both parties have disregarded the interests of the people of Gibraltar. It is time that that stopped. I hope that my being awkward about the issue means that someone in the Foreign Office has had his backside kicked and will be a bit more sensitive in future to the interests of the people of Gibraltar. I also hope that that message will endure for some years to come.
  In the Amsterdam treaty and the other treaties, references to the United Kingdom are always deemed to include Gibraltar. If a future Government decided that the United Kingdom should sign up to Schengen, would it be possible to hive off Gibraltar, or would the Government be bound by the treaties to include Gibraltar? If that were so, my new clause 1 would not be necessary.
  To buttress my argument, I remind the Committee that the United Kingdom has opt-outs on the social protocols. As a result, Gibraltar is also outside the social protocols. It does not say in the treaty, specifically, that Gibraltar is "outside", but because the United Kingdom is out, Gibraltar is out too. It follows that treaty references to the United Kingdom include Gibraltar unless the contrary is specifically stated. The provision under which the United Kingdom and Ireland can apply to enter the Schengen acquis, in whole or in part, contains no specific exclusion for Gibraltar.
  I hope that the Minister will tell me that new clause 1 is unnecessary because the Government and any future Government would be bound by the treaties to take Gibraltar along if they applied to sign up to Schengen. I invite the Minister to say that I am wrong in believing that the new clause is necessary, because the issue is buttoned up by the treaty.
  The Gibraltar Government and I fear that the treaty has also closed down a constitutional option for the future of Gibraltar. Under the treaty of Utrecht, it is possible for Gibraltar to be incorporated into the United Kingdom and we should not close down that constitutional option. The future constitution of Gibraltar is open to discussion, but by suggesting to the Spanish Government that we might be prepared to separate Gibraltar, we prejudice our ability to incorporate Gibraltar into the United Kingdom for electoral and other purposes in the future. That would be a pity.
  I hope that I have made it clear that reference to the United Kingdom in the Amsterdam and other treaties must also include Gibraltar. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is not within the competence of the Government to exclude Gibraltar, as a matter of expediency, if and when they make an application to join Schengen. If that is not the case, I hope that I will obtain support for new clause 1. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is an decent man and will not let the people of
  558
  Gibraltar down, but we do not know who will sit on the Treasury Bench in future. Future Ministers must not forget the interests of the people of Gibraltar. I want it locked into the Bill that the interests of the people of Gibraltar cannot be disregarded.
  Mr. Michael Howard: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made some cogent points and I shall return to the subject of Gibraltar myself in due course. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will receive answers from the Minister at the end of the debate.
  The provisions in the treaty relating to the free movement of persons and citizenship, and the attitude of the Government towards them, are among the most significant to come before the House of Commons. It is an absolute outrage that we are allowed barely an hour under the guillotine motion to consider matters of such fundamental importance.
  The treaty incorporates the Schengen agreement, which provides for the dismantling of internal frontiers in the European Union and free movement of persons within its area. It is ironic that within such a short time of the treaty being agreed we read daily reports of action taken by various member states to strengthen their border controls.
  The questions raised by border controls pose in acute form the dilemmas that arise when a choice has to be made between different desirable, but irreconcilable, objectives. In an ideal world where there is no threat to the stability of nations from the prospect of unlimited immigration, where there is no sudden shift in populations as a result of political or economic changes and where there are no dangers from the importation of drugs or arms, the free movement of persons unhindered by frontier controls would be desirable. It would be desirable not only in the European Union, but across the world. It is undoubtedly an attractive concept, but we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where there are such threats, such shifts and such dangers and where nations need the protection of frontier controls.
  I suspect that the future course of these provisions will be fraught. I believe that the member states of the Union, when the provisions are in force no less than now, will wish to escape their full vigour and to retain an element of control. They may find that it is too late. The provisions will be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and if it adopts its customary approach to the interpretation of the treaty the countries involved may find themselves defenceless.
  The previous Government had a clear view on the matter: we always refused to join the Schengen agreement and we made it plain that we would never join it, but we had no objection to other member state incorporating the agreement into the treaty as long as we had a watertight opt-out from it. The Labour party's attitude in opposition was equivocal, as it was on so many issues. It proclaimed its devotion to frontier controls, but it also insisted that it was against opt-outs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) pointed out. The Labour party's policy document of October 1995 stated:
  "we reject permanent opt-outs or 'variable geometry'".
  How those contradictory positions were to be reconciled was never explained.
  In any event, agreement was reached before the election by the previous Government. Other member states would get what they wanted, which was the incorporation of

  559
  Schengen into the treaty, and we would get what we wanted, which was a watertight opt-out. That was a done deal. It does the present Government no credit to claim it as their own.
  The present Government were left with the difficulty caused by their previous opposition to opt-outs, so the Prime Minister hit on the characteristically disingenuous tactic of describing the provisions as an opt-in. When he made his statement to the House on 18 June, he said:
  "Under the treaty, the United Kingdom can also participate in areas of interest to us if we so choose, at our option. That is not an opt-out but an opt-in, as we choose."
  He later stated:
  "We have the power … to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us going in."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 313–19]
  We now know that the Prime Minister was utterly wrong. He had not achieved what he thought he had achieved and what he told the House he had achieved. The truth is that any country can block our going in because the treaty provides that we can go in only with the unanimous agreement of the other member states. That is bad enough, but what has made matters so much worse is the inability of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister to give any consistent explanation of how that blunder, on a matter of considerable importance, came about. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone advanced one scenario. He says that it happened because in the early hours of the morning, in the closing stages of the summit, the Spanish Prime Minister put forward an amendment and, literally or metaphorically, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were nodding off and they failed to spot it.
  My hon. Friend incorporated into his criticism the advisers to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I must say on their behalf that they are immune from criticism: they were not present. At the closing stages of the summit, only the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are present, so no criticism should be attached to advisers for what may or may not have happened in the early hours of the morning in the closing stages of the summit.
  8.30 pm
  That scenario, suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, is very far removed from the extraordinary series of explanations, each of them inconsistent with the rest, that have been put forward by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State. The first explanation was that the presidency's note keeping was not what it should have been. That was what the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 December 1997.
  Then it was a hole in the corner deal done between Spain and the Dutch presidency, kept secret from the other member states and incorporated in the treaty after the negotiations had finished. That was the explanation given in an oral answer at Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Question Time on 25 November 1997.
  The next explanation was that it was a deal done not after the negotiations, but during the summit on the night of 16–17 June before the negotiations had finished, but still kept secret from the other member states and incorporated in the treaty without their knowledge. That was what we were told on 2 December 1997.
  560
  Then it was both—a deal done in the margins of the summit and discussed afterwards. That is what we were told by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), when he wound up the debate on the European Union on 4 December 1997.
  What we do know is that the Dutch Government sent a letter to the British Government about this matter on 16 July 1997. Alas, we could only surmise about the contents of that letter. Despite the Government's lip-service to openness—indeed, despite the provisions on openness in the Amsterdam treaty—they will give us no clue about the contents of the letter.
  Why, given the seriousness of the allegations, have the Government taken no action? I hope that the Minister of State will tell us tonight why they did not raise the matter at the Luxembourg summit. Why are they not insisting that the procedures of these summits are revised so as to ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again? We are entitled to a full explanation. We have not had one, but we shall continue to press for one.
  Whatever the cause, the upshot of it all is that any single country can block any application by the United Kingdom to join any part of the Schengen arrangements. It is not an entirely academic question. The hon. Member for Thurrock says that the Government have no intention of joining any of the Schengen arrangements, but he knows that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office submitted a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee that is printed in that Committee's report. The memorandum says that there may well be advantage in applying to join the information arrangements of the Schengen agreement. So this is not an academic question; it is a live question. This is something that matters, and it matters now.
  Any country, as a result of what is a bungle for those who believe my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, treachery and underhand dealing by Spain and the Dutch presidency for those who believe the Government—
  Mr. MacShane indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howard: Oh yes. Is it not treachery and underhand dealing to do a hole in the corner deal that is kept secret from the other member states? That is the allegation made by the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. MacShane indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in disbelief. I quite agree that it is an absolutely extraordinary state of affairs, but that is the allegation made by the Foreign Secretary. If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt, I invite him to read Hansard for 25 November 1997, column 754. It is all set out there.
  Spain can therefore block any application for the United Kingdom to join any part of the Schengen arrangements and we are told by the Government that Spain was responsible for the extraordinary shenanigans over this matter.
  Spain has a history of using any and every bargaining counter to further its claim to Gibraltar and putting as much pressure as possible on the United Kingdom in relation to Gibraltar. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and

  561
  I tabled new clause 28. The exigencies of the timetable motion mean that we cannot press it to a vote, but it marks our concern at the incompetent bungling that was the hallmark of the approach of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to the negotiations at Amsterdam.
  Mr. David Heath: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak before the guillotine strikes.
  To my surprise, I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that the position on opt-ins and opt-outs is not satisfactory. I also agree with him that there is a need for regular review of the Schengen arrangements. Britain is not currently part of those arrangements, but it is appropriate, now that the Schengen acquis is to become part of the acquis communautaire, that those arrangements are regularly reviewed, and I hope that they will be.
  One of the aspects that I hope will be reviewed in the near future, given the prospect of enlargement, is the unnecessary—but perhaps unavoidable—waste of the continual shifting of the entire border control mechanism from border to border as each country accedes, and the inevitable expense. I can see no one easy way around that—other than an arrangement to make it possible to purchase second-hand border control points—but there appears to be a need to see how the Schengen acquis works in the context of enlargement.
  My principal reason for speaking is to take up the matter of Gibraltar, which was amply illuminated by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Questions must be answered about Gibraltar.
  I am very disappointed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not including Gibraltar in the independent territories review, because there are serious questions to be asked about the democratic deficit in Gibraltar—and in the other dependent territories. Those issues should be addressed. The specific aspect that applies only to Gibraltar is that it is part of the territory of the European Union by treaty yet has no access to the democratic machinery of the European Union. That position is unsustainable.
  I shall now discuss the failure of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, or whichever of them was involved, to realise what was happening in the Amsterdam negotiations. As I have said, I believe that the appropriate response of the British Government is to say sorry that they failed to do their clear duty to the people of Gibraltar and to the people of Britain: to ensure that their interests were properly protected.
  The episode in which the Foreign Secretary tried to explain his position to the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and failed utterly to be convincing in doing so, followed by a memorandum from officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that did nothing to assuage the feeling that a blunder had occurred, and the extraordinary allegation that this was a matter of poor record keeping, was extraordinary.
  The conference at Amsterdam was an intergovernmental conference under the Dutch presidency. I do not believe that the Dutch are especially renowned for being an inefficient people, yet it is claimed
  562
  they cannot keep a simple record of proceedings that accords with the recollections of members present. That claim beggars belief. If it is impossible to examine the records and check what happened, that reveals a huge gap in the record keeping processes.
  All that is history. We now have a Spanish veto. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) supported the fact that the Spanish had a veto. I find that hard to reconcile with what his Front-Bench colleagues say, but in any event the Spanish have their veto. We now need some assurances from the Minister.
  First, we need assurances on the argument that the hon. Member for Thurrock made about the definition of the United Kingdom. I fear that the hon. Member for Thurrock will not be satisfied on that. I fear that the definition of the United Kingdom will not include dependent and Crown territories unless they are specifically included, so any future United Kingdom Government who apply to join the Schengen arrangements will have expressly to include those areas.
  Secondly, the Minister should announce what strategy he will employ to overcome any future Spanish veto during negotiations. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office must have thought about that. The Government have been landed in a position in which they may wish to accede to all or part of the Schengen acquis, and they must have some way of overcoming the Spanish veto.
  Thirdly, the Minister should tell us how he will ensure transparency of the British position that gives confidence to the people of Gibraltar that they will not be left out. That is what the amendment—and new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock—would achieve. If they were put to the vote, I would support them, but it appears that that will not occur, so we shall have to accept the Minister's assurances—if any are forthcoming.
  Mr. Gapes: I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has re-entered the Chamber in order to hear my speech. He used some interesting language in his contribution. He talked about the establishment of a new European entity called Europe. Whatever one calls it, the British people have lived on the continent of Europe for many thousands of years. The reality is that Europe is a complex entity that is changing. It comprises individual sovereign states that have chosen to co-operate and to come together for mutual benefit.
  I must address the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Stone about borders. Many of the countries of Europe share land borders. The United Kingdom is unique in that it is an island and shares only the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. That is an interesting border. For many years, people have moved freely from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland and vice versa. There is passport-free travel between Holyhead and Dublin on the ferry and citizens of the Irish Republic are able to live, work and vote in elections in the United Kingdom. According to the hon. Member for Stone, we should have put up the barriers, built the watch towers and stopped those people entering the country. Had we done that, Britain would not have benefited from the significant contributions to its economy by the Irish in Britain over many years.
  Another interesting example is the border between two recent members of the European Union, Sweden and Finland. I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to

  563
  travel a few years ago along the Nordkalloten highway through Sweden, Finland and Norway and north of the Arctic circle. People can travel from Rovaniemi in Finland, through a border post at Pello and into Sweden. There is no physical means of preventing them from doing that; there is no impediment to travel—people simply carry on along the road.
  As I like to collect mementos of my travels, I wanted to get a stamp in my passport to show that I had crossed from Sweden to Finland. When I went to the passport control office on the Finnish side of the river in Pello to get my passport stamped, I was greeted warmly by officials who acted as though they had not seen anyone in days or weeks—perhaps even years or decades. My passport was duly stamped with the Finnish entry stamp, and it was obviously a great occasion for passport officials who were not used to doing that.
  The fact is that people travel freely across European borders. Sweden and Finland are sovereign independent states with an interesting history. Anyone who has visited southern Finland will know that the relationship between the two countries has not always been amicable—in the past, there were conflicts, wars and questions of national identity. Nevertheless, there is no physical barrier to travel between those two countries.
  8.45 pm
  The countries of continental Europe that share land borders have decided that they wish to allow ease of movement in order to facilitate trade, human contact and relationships between towns that are situated either side of common borders. Anyone who has visited Strasbourg will know that a suburb of that city is situated in Germany and that people travel across the border without any complications. Countries have taken that step for perfectly good, logical reasons.
  Britain is in a different position geographically: we are an island with our own history. Therefore, our Government took the appropriate decision when the matter was discussed during negotiations at Amsterdam. There is no doubt that there are problems with Schengen. Difficulties have arisen with Turkish immigrants, many of whom are fleeing oppression and some of whom are pursuing economic opportunities. That movement is putting great pressure on several European Union countries.
  If we are to have a single market and if people are to travel easily between countries, we must work out a common relationship regarding the external frontiers of that economic union. That is why the proposals make a great deal of sense to countries such as Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg.
  However, the proposals do not make absolute sense in all circumstances. We are in a different position: apart from the channel tunnel rail and road links, we do not share common land borders with other countries. We can exist quite happily outside the Schengen arrangements adopted by other European Union states. I think that that answers the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stone in one of his familiar scare stories.
  Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the guillotine motion for which he voted, only 10 minutes remain for debate on this question? Is he further aware that several hon. Members have put forward
  564
  specific questions for answer by the Minister of State? Is the hon. Gentleman engaged in some kind of filibuster to protect the Minister from having to answer those questions? Labour Members are among those who put questions to the Minister of State. Will the hon. Gentleman please conclude his remarks so that we may hear the Minister's answers?
  Mr. Gapes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should refer his remarks to the hon. Member for Stone. I came into the debate from a Committee upstairs, where I had to listen to what could have been regarded at certain times as a filibuster by Conservative Members, so I could not take part in the debate in the Chamber until the present set of amendments. I have been present for that entire period, and I believe that I have a right to speak, as does any other Member. Although I am not a former Minister or a Privy Councillor, I believe that I have the right, like every other Member, to raise matters that are of concern to me. I shall continue to do so for one more minute, and then sit down.
  Amendment No. 28 deals with citizenship. It is clearly designed to undermine the Amsterdam treaty and stop the United Kingdom ratifying it. The amendment does not take account of the fact that the Amsterdam treaty is a great improvement on the Maastricht treaty, because a phrase was inserted in the Amsterdam treaty at the suggestion of the Danish Government which makes it clear that citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.
  I do not understand why those who have emphasised national aspects wish to remove that from the Bill and the treaty. That is ridiculous. If they are keen to emphasise the national aspect of the European Union, they should welcome the fact that the Danish Government, supported by our Government, inserted that provision in the treaty.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I am appalled that the guillotine on this important matter prevents me from making the speech that I wanted to make, particularly with reference to Gibraltar. Fortunately, most of the questions relating to that serious problem have been posed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I shall sit down so that the Committee may have the opportunity of hearing the Minister answer those important questions, which the people of Gibraltar want to hear answered satisfactorily.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful to colleagues on both sides who have restrained their remarks to allow me to make important responses to important questions. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) should not blame my hon. Friends. The Opposition have had since 4.30 pm today to discuss a series of amendments. If it was the Opposition's judgment—I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I know about being in opposition—that a three-hour debate on this matter was necessary, they could have had it. Until this set of amendments, only one contribution from the Government Benches was not directly in support of the Government's position. The Opposition have the authority and could have insisted on a three-hour debate.
  I would not have raised the matter, if the point had not been laboured by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Within the period allocated to this subject, his colleague,

  565
  the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), took 35 to 40 minutes to make his point. I am not complaining about that. It is up to the Opposition how they divide their time. There are important issues to discuss, and I must move on.
  In the sections of the treaty covered by this group of amendments there was a recognition of the British system of border controls, which is so important to our nation, as both sides of the Committee would acknowledge. Such recognition was never obtained by the previous Government. We have recently seen further evidence of the difficulties experienced by the Schengen countries in regulating the flow of people. That draws attention to the different systems, and emphasises the strength of our system.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) described in his contribution, other landlocked countries prefer to adopt different ways of regulating the flow of people. The Amsterdam treaty provides, for the first time, protection for both systems. That is a major achievement which the British people will recognise as a huge gain for this country.
  The hon. Member for Stone asked what was achieved in return for movement by the British Government. That was a major achievement, which the previous Government could not make. No decisions were taken, in effect, by the IGC for about six months before the British general election, because there was no engagement in the issues by the then British Government, which would have allowed our partners in Europe to say, "This is an important priority to you; these are important priorities to us. Can we put them together and produce an acceptable formula that we can present to the summit in Amsterdam, which would allow decisions to be made?" That is how progress is made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct to say that, before the fall of the previous British Government, they had the agreement of the other EU partners.
  Mr. Howard: The Minister is distorting history shamefully. Is he aware that we were not asking the other countries for a favour? They wanted something from us. They wanted the Schengen agreement to be incorporated in the treaty. We had a veto over that. We agreed to accede to their request, as long as we had a watertight opt-out. That was the basis of the agreement that was reached at the Foreign Affairs Council in March last year.
  Mr. Henderson: I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He demonstrates my point. I am not suggesting that the previous Government did not know what they wanted to achieve in the negotiations. However, because of the ossification of those negotiations, there was no movement, and no confidence from the other partners. They made that clear to us. When I walked through the doors of the IGC in May, the first thing that they asked me was, "Are you here to pontificate to us or to negotiate?" I replied that I wanted to be positive and constructive. By implication, I recognised that I could not have my way all the time. That was a realistic position.
  I shall move on, in the time that is left, to the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I assure him that, in relation to Gibraltar, it is the British Government's intention to
  566
  protect the interests of Gibraltar and to do that in co-operation with the Gibraltar Government and the people of Gibraltar. He asked whether Gibraltar would automatically be covered by any agreement reached in relation to Schengen, were it the British Government's intention at some time in the future to enter into the Schengen acquis.
  The answer is that, where a measure is introduced under the European Community treaty—in other words, a first pillar measure—Gibraltar is included by virtue of article 227, paragraph 4, of the treaty, except where Gibraltar remains outside a Community policy—in some instances in the past, the Gibraltar Government have wanted to remain outside a Community policy—or where it is expressly excluded. The answer to the first part of the question is that, in pillar 1, Gibraltar would not necessarily be covered.
  In the third pillar, in relation to Gibraltar, as in the case of anything else, the Government would have to take a position at the time. Gibraltar may or may not be included, depending on what was desired. That would be determined in conjunction with the people and the Government of Gibraltar. I hope that that answers the point.
  The hon. Member for Stone raised a fairly complicated legal point. I could give him an answer now if he wished, but I would run out of time. Therefore, in the remaining minute, I propose quickly to summarise the position, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman before Third Reading with the answer that I would have given now. If he wishes to raise the matter again then, I am sure that, given his parliamentary ingenuity, he will be able to find a way to do so.
  In essence, many things could be said about this section of the treaty. It is vital for Britain's interests that included in the treaty are the provisions that we believe are essential to protect our traditional system of border control. We do not have the same system as many other countries in landlocked Europe of identity cards, where the forces of law and order traditionally check people's identity where required. That is not the way in which we operate or want to operate.
  Our system has served us well. That does not mean that it will not change. It will have to change technologically and in other ways to meet the demands of the day. However, those changes will be determined by the British Government, and the same is true for the Irish Government. That was a major achievement in the treaty, and that was something which the previous Government found unobtainable.
  Mr. Cash: Having listened to the debate and expressed my grave reservations about the provisions in question, it will not be necessary for me to press the matter to a vote. However, I feel strongly that the Minister has completely failed to answer some severe criticisms—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that he seeks the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Cash: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9 pm
  Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
  `other than in Article 2, paragraph 7)'.
  The amendment deals with the question of discrimination and arises by virtue of article 6a inserted into the Amsterdam treaty. Article 2, paragraph 7 states:
  "Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation."
  My concern about that provision is simple. Within the context of the principle of subsidiarity, and the argument that we hear over and over again that that which is better dealt with at a national level should be dealt with at that level, there is no reason whatever for that provision. I note that it states that the Council would have to act unanimously, but the reality is that it is a step forward in the total integration of the cultures of the European Union.
  There is, I am afraid, an underlying theme, which is to undermine the individual decisions that may be taken within any one member state as to the kind of provisions that they wish to have made in terms of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. No one could accuse the United Kingdom of having anything other than an enlightened statutory framework in respect of those matters. Any attempt to impose standards and requirements upon us in the context of those various matters would be wholly inappropriate.
  Let us for a moment consider what the words "may take appropriate action" are intended to mean. Do they mean that we could be visited by not only directive but regulation, which would be enforceable upon us as a matter of law without further legislation? I do not know. If it had said that there would be a power to introduce these matters by way of directive, I might have taken exception to that. We have the right and the power to decide such matters for ourselves. We already have the effective Race Relations Act 1976, and I see nothing wrong with that. I am completely against any suggestion of discrimination on the ground of race, and, as far as I am aware, the United Kingdom has long operated perfectly satisfactorily with those laws. I think that those laws were passed as long ago as 1965 or 1968.
  Before Labour Members get stirred up—I see them looking through their papers—in the hope that they can cause me some embarrassment because they think that I am about to say something that gives rise to the idea that I am in favour of discrimination, I must tell them that I am not. I am concerned that the proposal is outside the proper jurisdiction or understanding of how the European Union should function. On the principle of subsidiarity, it is completely and utterly outside the arena where such laws should be implemented.
  Some difficult questions arise with respect to age, for example. Does the Commission propose to change the law with regard to compulsory retirement? People do not seem to have thought the matter through. I speak as a member of the European Select Committee, which considers over and again provisions that are merely called "communications". Would it be appropriate for there to be a communication, or would it be a directive or a regulation? We do not know. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the matter. He may have given it no thought—to judge by his face, he has not.
  568
  The idea that we should be subjected to a flow of legislation on those questions is extraordinary. Let us consider the words:
  "to combat discrimination based on … religion".
  What is the reason for that? Why is it thought necessary to have a Europewide arrangement to deal with such questions? I cannot believe that it is necessary in the United Kingdom, and if it is good enough for us to govern ourselves as we do at present, why should we think in terms of accepting a provision in a treaty that makes a different provision for the Community as a whole?
  Discrimination in respect of religion in the United Kingdom was dealt with more than a century ago. My family happened to be Quakers in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, when there was severe discrimination. Indeed, a famous case in the House of Commons was that of Bradlaugh, who refused to take an oath and was suspended from the House as a result—and worse, I think. As it happens, I am also a Catholic, and I have experienced no discrimination whatever in the United Kingdom. I see no reason why it should be necessary for us to be a party to a treaty that applies legislation across the whole of the Community—even if it is proposed that it should be unanimous—with respect to religion. What on earth is going on? What is the purpose of that?
  We know that the real purpose is to create a homogeneous society—to change individual countries' cultures, and thereby also change their identities, to produce a degree of homogeneity in respect of matters relating to sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion, belief, disability and sexual orientation. The object of the exercise is to try to create uniformity in law across the Community. That fits in with title II of the Maastricht treaty, which deals with citizenship. The question of citizenship was raised in the last group of amendments.
  I distinctly remember that title II of the Maastricht treaty states that citizenship should be left undefined for the time being, but that the blanks should be filled at a later date when the manner in which it should be prescribed is decided. This provision is an attempt to put flesh on the bones of citizenship in a European context. Its purpose is to deal with discrimination based on sex, race and ethnic origin, but it will cause great difficulty.
  I am concerned about the implications for age, agism and the elderly. Who is to say that legislation would not be introduced by the Council of Ministers, which would not be described as discrimination as it would come from such a high authority, that would alter the provisions on age or sex in a manner prescribed by member states acting together, but which would change the laws of the United Kingdom in a way that no one had envisaged?
  The reference to sexual orientation is extraordinary. Is not paedophilia a sexual orientation? There has been a spate of serious cases in Belgium and in the United Kingdom. Will people pray such provisions in aid to generate the impetus for bringing paedophilia into a homogeneous European legal framework? I envisage serious difficulties as a result of this ridiculous attempt to create such a European law. The argument that what I have described is far-fetched can be repudiated by reference to the United States, where laws are being strictly construed by the courts along those lines in individual states. Those laws have been introduced to combat discrimination, but they have had the reverse effect. Tensions are created by politically correct laws,

  569
  and that is causing enormous embarrassment to the people who originally introduced them with the best of intentions.
  I have no doubt that such issues as race should be covered by proper legislation. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is thought necessary for the treaty to provide, albeit with the requirement of unanimity, a framework within which such matters can even be conceived of as matters to be dealt with at a European level. What is the reason for that?
  Some Labour Members are brimful of political correctness and want to lower the age of consent to 16, but many other people in this country are not at all happy for such a provision as is set out in this article to be applied in this country, let alone at a European level.
  A simple question lies at the root of my amendment. Why is it thought necessary to deal with these matters at a European level? The Minister obviously considers this a laughing matter, but I should be grateful if he would explain it. Will he answer my simple question? Why is it thought necessary or desirable for these measures to be taken at a European level, albeit with unanimity?
  If the Minister says that he does not think that we will ever exercise the powers—because, with unanimity, we would veto any such provisions—I am bound to ask him a second question. Why did he not prevent the provisions from being introduced in the first place? The provisions are in the Bill—with the consent of this Labour Government—for a reason, and I think that the House is entitled to know what that reason is.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Tony McNulty: I happily accept that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not pro-discrimination. It would be silly to charge him with that, and I am grateful to him for clarifying his position. I have to say, however, that his interpretation of the part of the treaty that is under discussion was, to say the least, perverse.
  I have been reading Hansard. In an earlier debate, the issue of paedophilia and sexual orientation was raised. It seems that we are now really digging in the dirt to create an anti-European, indeed Europhobic, dimension. In fact, the situation is quite the reverse. I hope that the Government will support this part of the treaty, because—as the hon. Gentleman said—Britain has such a good, strong record in all these legislative areas, although its record is not impeccable.
  Interestingly, even in her wildest moments as Premier, Lady Thatcher did not touch legislation on sexual discrimination, race relations and similar matters. That is not because our legislation was perverse; indeed, I do not think that it goes nearly far enough—but, as has already been pointed out, it is probably the jewel in the crown in terms of anti-discrimination legislation in Europe. Why not use such experience and expertise, which until recently could be used in a non-partisan way?
  With the best will in the world and the greatest respect, I must say that, until the cranks took over what appear to be all aspects of the official Opposition's policies, there was cross-party support for all anti-discrimination proposals. That being the case, why not go further?
  570
  Why not proselytise, and exploit that strength and expertise in a European dimension? Who could oppose Europewide anti-discrimination directives?
  It is interesting to note that one shibboleth that the hon. Member for Stone could not employ was the word "unanimity". Time after time, we have heard the words "albeit by unanimity". I do not understand how combating, Europewide, discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation—short of the perverse interpretation of "sexual orientation" that has just been mentioned—can be opposed. Perhaps we need to look further to discover some of the underlying reasons.
  As I have said, I fully accept that the hon. Member for Stone is as opposed to discrimination as anyone else, but I do not extend that generous interpretation to some others in his ranks. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not present, but it is nevertheless worth pointing out that part of his rich and varied history involved his being secretary of the race and repatriation committee of the Monday club. That is entirely up to him, but, if he had tabled the amendment in the terms used by the hon. Member for Stone, I would find it rather more difficult to believe that he was against discrimination.
  Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, before making personalised attacks of this kind, it is normal to inform the Member concerned in advance, so that he has the opportunity to hear the observations and, if necessary, defend himself and his motives?
  The Chairman: It is not so much a matter of order; it is a matter of courtesy to the House that an hon. Member who intends to refer to another hon. Member should advise him beforehand or refrain from making such comments.
  Mr. McNulty: With the greatest respect, I was merely quoting historical fact in relation to some of the confreres of the hon. Member for Stone in order to challenge their reasons for supporting the amendment in the Lobby if and when there is a Division. I fully accept that the hon. Member for Stone is not in favour of discrimination, but it is entirely appropriate to suggest that others in his ranks are not of that persuasion. I would say further—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is teetering on the brink of great discourtesy. The point has been well explained: if an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member, he should, out of courtesy, inform him beforehand.
  Mr. McNulty: I accept that, Sir Alan, and am grateful.
  In general terms, there is a wing, a faction, in what is currently called the Conservative party—at least, in England, although I think that it is changing its name in Scotland—that has, at best, a murky past when it comes to issues of discrimination.
  Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a body of religious opinion which extends well beyond the bounds of the Conservative party and which believes that homosexual practice is immoral? That opinion is based on scripture. How does the

  571
  hon. Gentleman view the treaty's provisions with respect to the right of those people to practise discrimination in their own affairs on the basis of that belief?
  Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point entirely. It is not a morality or anti-morality clause in the treaty; it is an anti-discrimination clause. Clearly, those—and I accept that there are plenty—who, on moral grounds, take the rather intolerant view that homosexuality is perverse or wrong are fully entitled to that opinion. But they are not entitled to have that moral position frozen into law, whether on a European or a British basis.
  Mr. Swayne: If I were to believe that homosexuality was odious to men and detestable to God, and based that view, as many do, on scripture, would I not have the right if, for example, I owned a small shop and wished to take on an employee, to ensure that that employee was not a homosexual?
  Mr. McNulty: That has proved my point entirely; no, the hon. Gentleman would not have that right under employment law. He would not have that right any more than I, were I the proverbial small shopkeeper, have the right to decide that people with frazzled, grey hair were not suitable employees—that is as perverse a point as the one that the hon. Gentleman made. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has made his position on discrimination against women clear—it is equally as daft as some of his other suggestions, and I do not think that it is appropriate.
  It is appropriate to challenge, at least in part, the underlying motives behind at least some of those who will support the amendment. Some—there has been a litany of them tonight—will do so purely to wreck things so that we cannot ratify the treaty, which is fine; they are entitled to that position. Others, who shall remain nameless as a courtesy to them, belong to the wing of the Conservative party that agrees with comments such as those made in an immigration and repatriation committee report in the early 1980s. In that committee
  "it was formally agreed that the policy of the Committee should be an end to New Commonwealth and Pakistani immigration; a properly financed scheme of voluntary repatriation, the repeal of the Race Relations Act, and the abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality; particular emphasis on repatriation".
  That is an historic view that has been prevalent, albeit among a minority, in the ranks of the Conservative party. Happily, I have no evidence that it is prevalent among those who are here tonight. But there are those who sit in the twilight zone of intolerance and who are not in favour of anti-discrimination legislation, whether in a British or a European dimension.
  Under our presidency, we have a real opportunity to say to most of the rest of Europe, which in many cases has dragged its heels in anti-discrimination legislation, "Here is the starting point. Here is Britain's happy record which was established on a cross-party basis throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Not even Lady Thatcher changed our approach." Britain can be a beacon for European legislation.
  Some would say—I would not necessarily say this—that there are far too many caveats and qualifications in terms of the implementation of anti-discrimination legislation. There are references to unanimity and to
  572
  legislation being appropriate to the legislative body of each member state. Those qualifications mean that, by the time anti-discrimination measures come before national legislative bodies, they will not be as effective or as strong as our proud history of anti-discrimination legislation, which is a pity.
  From the 1960s onwards, Britain has been in the vanguard—one of the few instances where this has been the case—in achieving a level playing field in employment practices. We now want to take that forward on a European basis. All hon. Members should be saying that we have a lesson to teach Europe on anti-discrimination legislation.
  We should not go for some of the perverse interpretations of anti-discrimination legislation. We should fully support article 6, and we should have no truck with the wrecking nonsense proposed by the hon. Member for Stone or with the more intolerant, cranky and frankly racist views of some Conservative Members. I repeat that none of them is present tonight. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I support amendment No. 26, partly because I was not fortunate enough, as a result of the guillotine so shamelessly imposed by the Government, to speak in the debate on citizenship. Amendment No. 26 illustrates the ramifications of the concept of European citizenship being universally applied, whether with or without their consent, to all nationals of countries within the European Union.
  Article 6a will codify a power for the European Union to be at its most intrusive in those aspects of its citizens' lives which are particularly private or sensitive, and which ought in any normal jurisdiction to be a matter for them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) rightly argued, the article demonstrates the total fallacy of the Labour Government's claim to be upholders of the principle of subsidiarity. How can a bigger organisation at the centre of the ramshackle and often fraudulent and corrupt empire that is the European Union presume to have any legislative role in people's domestic, social or employment arrangements in the member states?
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and others will argue that there are safeguards, inasmuch as the Council will have to act unanimously. Over the years, however, we have come to learn the hard way that, by a process of horse trading, moral blackmail and political intimidation, powers encapsulated within the treaties can be used by member countries of the European Union to impose their will in other areas on other countries of the Union.
  Let us examine the detail of the provision. First, a proposal must come from the Commission. Under the treaty, the citizenry of the European Union have the right, do they not, to petition or to make representations to any institution of the European Union? Presumably, therefore, if a citizen feels that he cannot in this country get adequate redress from the Commission for Racial Equality—if it is a matter of racial discrimination—off will go his submission to the Commission. That type of representation can be replicated throughout the European Union.
  The Commission, as the guardian of the treaty, with the European Court of Justice, will wish to justify its existence in this area of competence. Man hours and

  573
  expenditure will therefore be devoted to a matter that is properly one for national Governments and not for the bureaucratic institution—the Commission—at the centre of that ramshackle empire.
  9.30 pm
  The European Parliament will also be involved, because it must be consulted. Presumably, therefore, in the Parliament's busy schedule of peregrinations between Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg, it has time to consider those matters, too. That will mean further cost and a further burden on the citizens of the European Union. How can Members of the European Parliament—more remote as they are, because they do not hold the same surgeries as we do and are not in the same daily contact as we are with our electors—presume to have better understanding than elected representatives in the nation states on matters of discrimination
  "based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation"?
  What will be the appropriate action in the eventuality that, by means of that horse trading or blackmail, an individual country is induced to relinquish its veto and accept European jurisdiction in that sphere? There would, I presume, be a directive; there might be a regulation. Whatever it was, it would not be as appropriately tailored to the needs of the individual nation state as a nation's own legislation. We know that from the way in which directives are discussed in our European Standing Committees. We cannot amend European directives, or even vote them down. As for European regulations, they are imposed from above our head, without any consultation in this Parliament.
  There could, I suppose, be some other type of measure—some countervailing measure—that is perhaps harder to envisage now but that could be equally a nuisance to individual countries.
  The matter may seem trivial, and we may seem far-fetched in our objections. However, we are witnessing yet another attempt—in which the Government are wholly content; they acquiesce in and encourage such activity—to make the Commission and the institutions of the European Union even more intrusive in the daily lives of our people than they are already.
  In our country as in other countries of the European Union, a feeling of deep resentment and of bitterness is understandably building up. They—our people—have never been consulted on those matters. They assumed that their own Parliament was the custodian of their interests and their civil liberties—but no. We look now to a superior authority in Brussels. Even in such intimate matters as sexual orientation, belief, religion or ethnic discrimination, Brussels will have the final say—to some extent by virtue of the treaty—rather than national Governments.
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Before I came to the House, I had heard that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was somewhat anti-Europe, so I was taken aback by some of his views as to why the article was included in the Amsterdam treaty. He said that it was a step towards the total integration of the European Union, that the United Kingdom's enlightened legal and statutory
  574
  framework was quite sufficient and that we needed no more legislation to prohibit discrimination in the rest of Europe. I totally reject that view.
  I represent a constituency with one of the largest and most diverse multicultural communities in the United Kingdom. People from different parts of the Commonwealth and the world now reside in my constituency as British citizens. They have different religions and different colour skins. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has asked anyone such as Norris Pyke, one of my good friends who was born in St. Kitts, who is a British subject and who is a black West Indian, whether he has had problems when travelling in Europe and whether he has ever suffered discrimination. Of course he has, simply because of the colour of his skin.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that in that respect the United Kingdom has excellent legislation—the Race Relations Act 1976. Indeed, we have led the way internationally in showing how legislation can overcome discrimination, especially against people from different racial backgrounds. We do not have the type of political correctness to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The Race Relations Act outlaws positive discrimination.
  In the United Kingdom, we do not believe in positive discrimination. It was deemed illegal to have women-only shortlists for Parliament, as positive discrimination went against the spirit of all the legislation that we have passed over the years, which promoted equality of opportunity. Positive discrimination has brought into disrepute many of the laws in the United States that were supported by those who believed that political correctness would overcome discrimination. We do not have that in the United Kingdom. We have a model set of laws, which have gone a long way in fighting racial discrimination.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned religious discrimination. He said that he was brought up as a Quaker and is now a Catholic and that many of the laws that discriminated against Catholics and other denominations of Christianity were passed in the last century. However, there is still enormous discrimination against Muslims in the United Kingdom and in Europe.
  One of my constituents, Shakeel Razak, was born in Karachi, came to the United Kingdom when he was three years old and was brought up in Leeds. He is a citizen of the United Kingdom, but he has encountered discrimination in the United Kingdom and in Europe. When travelling as a British citizen abroad, he has suffered a great deal of discrimination in Europe because of his religion.
  The article could help to block the appalling material that is appearing on the internet, especially some of the 250 or so websites about holocaust denial, for example. Tomorrow I am travelling to Bonn with Lord Janner, a former Member of this House, to meet the President of the German Bundestag and members of the German Government responsible for trying to police the internet. They have ideas that could be adopted Europewide, given that the internet knows no boundaries. Such legislation could help us to counter the racist and offensive material that is increasingly appearing on websites.
  I hope that that trip will make us better informed here. It will certainly give us a lot of information on how Parliament can frame legislation through Europe and conduct a Europewide fight against the horrible material that appears regularly on the internet.

  575
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that the provision was part of a tendency to be increasingly intrusive in the daily lives of the citizens of Europe. It will give us a Europewide framework to help us to overcome some of the discrimination that is seen and felt by our citizens from different racial backgrounds and religions travelling in Europe, as well as such citizens who live in France, Germany and other parts of Europe. Overcoming racial discrimination and bringing us closer to racial harmony, multiculturalism and a way of living together throughout Europe, embracing not just the different nations, but the different cultures, religions and racial backgrounds, will help to produce a better Europe for all the citizens of the United Kingdom and abroad.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) spoke with great sincerity. I hope that I can convince him that he is wrong. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) has left the Chamber. Harrow may be a lovely place, but it has a nasty habit of returning Members of Parliament of all parties with whom I disagree. He said very clearly that we should not worry about the measure and that anyone who voted against it was anti-European. Now he has departed, after making a scandalous and offensive speech, but he should appreciate that those of us who agree with the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) support democracy.
  Considering how the Labour party has fought so vigorously in the past for the rights of individuals to have a say in their own affairs, it is very worrying that a Labour Government are bringing forward a treaty that takes more powers away from democracy. I am sure that the Minister appreciates, as Conservative Ministers have found before, that to get what he wants at European meetings, any Minister has to agree to lots of other little clauses being inserted. The Government would not necessarily have inserted the provision on their own.
  The protection of unanimity has been mentioned. If the Minister speaks to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he will be well aware that many measures are introduced in Europe simply because one Government are anxious to get a measure through. Because they are so anxious for something to be done, they agree to bring forward legislation that they do not want. That is the basis of horse trading, not democracy, but that is how legislation is put through.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East appreciates that using European institutions is not necessarily the best way to get the right law. When there are 12 people sitting round a table, the result is often a thorough mess.
  Handing over more power to the European Court of Justice will not necessarily give us the right sort of justice. The rulings of the European Court of Justice are not an interpretation of law or fairness. It brings forward crazy proposals, based on its desire to be a legislative assembly without democracy. Recent decisions of the European Court of Justice on discrimination have had devastating consequences for member countries.
  For example, if hon. Members speak to their friends from the Republic of Ireland and ask about the consequences of the Grogan judgment in 1991, they will
  576
  be horrified. They could also look back to 1994 in Cornwall, when the most unusual decision was made about someone who had changed sex.
  Hon. Members should be well aware that if we pass over powers to the European Court of Justice, we are passing that power totally outwith any democratic control. For example, on a different subject, we should look back at the repeal of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was passed by the House of Commons on the basis that it had been approved not only by the House but, by the back door, by the Commission. Yet it was retrospectively repealed by the European Court. We must realise that that was a huge intervention in the democratic process.
  9.45 pm
  It is appalling to hand over more power to Europe, because it means the passing of legislation that we cannot change. If, after his appalling speech, the hon. Member for Harrow, East ever comes come back into the Chamber to listen to a debate, I hope that he will appreciate that the principle of democracy in this country means that if we pass a law that does not work or turns out to be unfair—to a particular ethnic minority, for example—we can do something about it. The tragedy with Euro-law is that once it goes through, nothing can be done.
  I have not spoken in the debate before, so I hope that I shall not be accused of wasting time when I say that anyone who doubts what I say—especially if he or she believes in democracy, as true socialists should—should ask himself or herself why such an organisation has not been able to resolve problems. An example is the appalling protection racket of the common agricultural policy, which is so unfair to the poor and wastes so much money.
  If, following the proposal before us, we hand over more power to the European Court and European legislation, we are simply taking away the power of the people. Some people feel that that does not matter, because at the end of the day the same people will decide the same things. I know that some individuals in the House regard the whole business of democracy as a bit of a joke and say that the same people decide things, no matter which system we have. I do not believe that.
  If we pass over such a massive chunk of activity to Europe, it will simply mean bad law, not because Europeans are nasty people, but because when 12 countries are sitting round to try to determine something, we never seem to get the right or the fair answer. Moreover, the people's power to do anything about that bad law will fade away.
  Finally, I shall say something about the views that have been expressed about the measure. The organisation Christian Action, Research and Education was worried about the proposals, especially those on sexual orientation. It was concerned about what they would mean for its employment policies, so it wrote to the Foreign Office asking whether litigation could arise. The answer, on 7 July, was that although the Foreign Office
  "would not expect litigation to arise",
  it could not be ruled out.
  If Euro-legislation comes forward, it will be interpreted by the European Court, and that is not good news. Unfortunately, we find that rather than interpreting law,

  577
  the European Court tends to expand the powers of the European agencies. I therefore hope that the Government will do one simple thing arising from the amendment.
  I ask the Minister, and especially exciting new Members such as the hon. Member for Harrow, East, why more and more power has gone away from democracy to the European Union since we signed the treaty of Rome, and nothing has come back to democracy. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a good idea to pass such treaties giving additional powers to Europe when nothing comes back to the democratic process?
  Would it not be a great thing if at the next meeting of the European Council, Ministers, some of whom I greatly respect, because on some issues they have achieved a great deal, for which I am grateful, set up some kind of committee or tabled a proposal to ask whether some things could come back to the democratic process and away from the European situation?
  If we simply sit back and let more power go to the European process, which is devoid of direct democracy and in which nothing can be resolved even if it turns out to be nonsense, and more power is given to the European Court, over which the people and their democratic assemblies have no control, it will be bad not only for democracy in this country but for the whole of Europe.
  I therefore hope that after such a silly proposal, which could produce nasty results, the Government will take the initiative and concentrate on trying to find out whether there is some way of taking some power back to democracy from non-democratic organisations, rather than taking away powers from democratic Parliaments that could do something about the problems. Issues of sexual and racial discrimination are important, and we have a duty to protect minorities and people with problems. I believe that a democratic assembly that can pass laws and then change them if they are wrong, unfair or offensive is the right way to pass law—not simply giving more power to non-democratic institutions in the EU.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: First, I wish to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). From the speeches that I have heard from him in the Chamber, I can say that I respect his belief in democracy and that he speaks with passion and conviction on these issues. However, I have to say that he is fundamentally wrong, and I ask him to reflect on some of the points that he made.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to issues of concern to him within the European debate, such as the money wasted on the common agricultural policy—a view that many of us share. Part of the problem with the CAP is that it was designed when Britain was not participating in Europe and was not involved in the discussions. Therefore, the CAP was framed for the needs and concerns of other countries that had different farming industries from Britain.
  In terms of a single European currency, one of my fears is that we might miss the boat, but will be forced to join later because we shall not be prepared to pay the price of staying out of a strong single currency. However, the key decisions will have been made on the framing of the currency. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that.
  578
  I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the European Court of Justice, about which many criticisms can be made. One of the issues about which I am concerned is that the European Court of Justice has difficulty in interpreting European Union law because it has no access to the deliberations when the law is framed. The key decision-making Council, the Council of Ministers, is not open and members of the European Court are not aware of the discussions that have taken place.
  The remarks of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) caused me great concern and confusion. He said that, in his experience, there was resentment and bitterness among the British people with regard to Europe and the EU. Genuinely, that is not my experience from talking to people on the doorstep about the treaty, the European Union or other European matters. However, there is confusion and a lack of understanding about the way in which Europe works.
  We have heard comments this evening about the low turnouts at European elections. The turnouts are low not because people lack interest in what is happening in Europe, but because they treat the European Parliament with the respect that they believe it deserves in terms of its power. They do not believe that the Parliament has power and teeth, and therefore accord it the power that they think it deserves.
  I was also taken by what the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said about anti-discrimination legislation which, he said, intrudes on private and sensitive areas of people's lives. I struggled to come to terms with what he meant by that. In my view, discrimination is about the use of power actively to discriminate against someone because of their sex, race, ethnic origin, disability or sexual orientation. That is not a private activity: it is a public abuse. To say that the state has no role in combating discrimination shows an unwarranted disrespect towards the issues.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman touches on the core of the issue. If the power were to be vested in the state—the nation state—whose Government's actions are modified by an elected Parliament that is close to the people, those people could have confidence. The article gives to Brussels, a more remote and bureaucratic institution, the power to intervene in matters that are often for subjective judgment and on which the Commission for Racial Equality in our own country finds it hard enough to give an opinion.
  Mr. Rammell: If Brussels and the operations of the European Union are remote from people's understanding and experiences, that is an argument for opening up decision making in the European Union, opening up the Council of Ministers and improving the scrutiny process. A person who has directly suffered from either sex or race discrimination will not be concerned whether the relief comes from Brussels or from a national institution.
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that we did not need any proposals or articles from Europe because Britain had an enlightened attitude and record. I ask him to reflect on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, pushed through by the previous Government, whereby responsibility was placed on employers to check the nationality status of their employees; small employers' groups took the view that that undermined confidence in race relations. That is not an enlightened approach.

  579
  I ask the hon. Gentleman also to reflect on what was known as clause 28, which went out of its way to pillory people because of their sexual orientation and to encourage discrimination against them. That was not an enlightened approach. Before we get on our high horse and say that everything is perfect in our back garden and that discrimination is a problem only in Europe, I would ask Conservative Members to reflect on what has happened in our country in the past 18 years regarding discrimination and equal opportunities.
  The hon. Gentleman asked the rhetorical question where the instances of sexual discrimination were, and said that we did not have a problem in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends have already drawn attention to some problems that we have. One of the most pressing issues in the House at the moment is the struggle to find a resolution to the conflicts in Northern Ireland; communities on both sides of the divide would say that discrimination on the basis of religion at the very least has something to do with the situation. It is wide of the mark to say that such problems are nothing to do with us.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he was not in favour of discrimination. I accept that, because I know, from working with him on the Select Committee on European Legislation, that he is indeed an honourable Gentleman; but he went on to distort completely the aims of the article and of the treaty. He said that article 6a was about changing the culture and the identity of the nation states and the people in them. I ask him to reflect on his contention that it was about changing cultures and identities. What aspect of British culture would be eroded by preventing discrimination?
  There is often a problem with the language used by Conservative Members in debates such as this. They do not bring enlightenment or open up the issues to ordinary people, but distort what is taking place. That was especially the case, regrettably, when the hon. Gentleman mentioned paedophilia and claimed that it was a sexual orientation that could come under the auspices of that part of the treaty. That is wide of the mark and his accusation had no basis in fact. Paedophilia is illegal in every state of the European Union and that position will not be affected by the legislation. The hon. Gentleman was making an unworthy attempt to smear the treaty and the proposal.
  It seems as if we have been participating in debates on the Bill for a lifetime, since before Christmas. I sometimes feel as if I am participating in a meeting of a strange sect, or at least a caucus meeting of the Members of Parliament who were expelled from the Tory party and lost the Whip before the general election.
  It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  To report progress and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Tuition Fees (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate a matter of great concern to students, their families and higher education institutions in Scotland. The Government's policy on higher education is full of flaws and anomalies. Tonight, I wish to address one of those anomalies—the unwillingness of the Department for Education and Employment to fund adequately the fourth-year tuition fees for nonScottish-domiciled UK students at Scottish universities.
  I was appalled when the Government first announced proposals to introduce tuition fees in July. I tabled an early-day motion that pointed out that the proposals would discriminate against students in Scottish universities and the traditional four-year Scottish honours degree. The Garrick report also highlighted that problem and recommended that
  "the Secretary of State should ensure that the contribution from Scottish graduates for qualifications gained in Scotland is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK."
  The Minister for Education and Industry responded by announcing that
  "to ensure equity of treatment for Scottish students with students on shorter courses in England and Wales, the Government has decided that Scottish students should not pay the £1,000 tuition fees for the final year of a degree course where it is a year longer than the comparable course in England and Wales."
  However, in solving one problem the Scottish Office exacerbated another. The problem stems from an ambiguity in the word "Scottish". When Garrick spoke of Scottish graduates, he clearly meant all those graduating from Scottish universities, regardless of nationality. The Minister's solution will create a situation in which Scottish students at Scottish universities will have their fourth-year tuition fees paid, but non-Scottish UK students will not. That is clearly discriminatory towards potential English, Northern Irish and Welsh students who recognise the value of a Scottish four-year honours degree.
  I welcome the fact that there is no similar discrimination against European Union students who will be protected by European Union rules. The Scottish Office has said:
  "The Government is committed to treating students from European Union countries on the same basis as students from the UK as far as tuition fees are concerned."
  However, that is not actually true. What that means is that the Government will treat European Union students applying to Scottish universities in the same way as Scottish applicants and, therefore, European Union students will not have to pay tuition fees in the final year of their course. That only highlights further the discrimination against non-Scottish-domiciled United Kingdom students.
  English, Welsh and Northern Irish applicants to Scottish universities will be expected to pay up to £1,000 more than Scottish or European Union students for exactly the same course, given the same background

  581
  circumstances. To put it simply, at St. Andrews university, a student from St. Ives or St. Albans will have to pay £1,000 more than a student from St. Etienne.
  In a written answer, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said:
  "The EC Treaty requires Member States not to discriminate on grounds of nationality against nationals of other Member States, on matters within the scope of the Treaty. However, EC law does not intervene in internal matters and require each Member State to treat all its own"
  citizens
  "in exactly the same way."—[Official Report, 1 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 10–11.]
  In other words, because European law does not prevent the Government from discriminating against their own citizens on the ground of nationality, the Government can do as they please.
  That principle simply cannot be justified. There would have been a massive—and justified—public outcry, had the Government proposed the imposition of up to £1,000 extra for tuition fees on ethnic or religious grounds. How, then, can the Government justify this discrimination against English, Northern Irish and Welsh students?
  Hon. Members may wonder why it is left to the Scottish National party to oppose the Government's proposals for higher education. For those who portray us as "narrow-minded nationalists", it might seem strange that the SNP is defending the rights of the English, the Northern Irish and the Welsh, but for those who know us it is simply a case of the SNP promoting a just cause and opposing discrimination within the British Union. The SNP, in co-operation with the Scottish Ancients, the National Union of Students and the higher education institutions, has identified three main reasons for opposing this policy. I am happy to acknowledge that we have received support from other political parties that join us in this campaign, but I wish to state the three main reasons.
  First, the SNP and the Scottish universities warmly welcome students from other parts of the United Kingdom, who form an integral part of the diversity of the Scottish education system. Those students make up 48 per cent. of students at Edinburgh university, 45 per cent. at St. Andrews, 36 per cent. at Dundee and 32 per cent. at Stirling. English, Welsh and Northern Irish students must not be deterred from coming to Scotland, but they will be under the Government's policy.
  Secondly, the SNP fears for the future of the Scottish higher education system. Any sizeable drop in applications from other parts of the United Kingdom will force universities to downsize their diverse range of courses. There is also a danger that Scottish universities may well be forced to consider abandoning the traditional four-year honours degree, replacing it with a three-year course, so as to compete on a level playing field to attract non-Scottish UK students.
  As one university lecturer commented to me,
  "The four year degree is being killed"
  by Government policy.
  "Tuition fees will back us into a corner, forcing a cut in the course length with the resultant loss of jobs and the drop in standards of the traditional honours degree."
  582
  Thirdly, there are important implications for the Scottish economy. The McNicholl report, published by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals two years ago, identified that "rest of UK" students at Scottish universities contribute more than £110 million annually to the Scottish higher education system. In addition, every year they contribute £100 million in off-campus expenditure on Scottish goods and services.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: One hundred million. He said billion.
  Mr. Welsh: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's correction because it is £100 million—would that it were £100 billion.
  Therefore any fall in applications to Scottish higher education establishments from other parts of the United Kingdom will have a considerable impact on the wider Scottish economy.
  What of the cost to students? Since the introduction of student loans, the drop-out rate has dramatically increased—by 12 per cent. Without Government action by the DFEE to remedy the anomaly, we shall witness a drop in student applications to higher education, and spiralling student debt. There was a time when the Labour party in opposition fully endorsed the principle of free education for all according to ability and regardless of wealth. In 1994, 42 current Labour Members of Parliament—including three current Ministers—called upon the Conservative Government to
  "halt the slide towards self-financing by students".
  With the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of tuition fees, one may ask where it will end.
  When the Australian Government introduced tuition fees, students had to pay only an average of 23 per cent. of the total fee. However, that figure has now risen to 45 per cent. Top-up fees were also ruled out, but will be permitted from next year. The reassurances that the United Kingdom Government have given to students here are similar to those given to Australian students. Our student organisations and educational institutions are right to be wary about the future.
  The unwillingness of the DFEE—the Secretary of State is absent from the Chamber tonight—to provide funds for its own students will have an adverse effect by discouraging students from the rest of the United Kingdom from applying to Scottish universities and colleges on financial grounds. It is not acceptable for the Secretary of State to insist:
  "quality of education at universities in Scotland is such that those who are privileged enough to have earnings that will oblige them to pay the full £1,000 fee will feel that it is worth the investment"— [Official Report, 13 November 1997; Vol. 300. c. 1020.]
  If that is the case, why do Scottish students have their fees paid? The Government's policy is simply inconsistent.
  The DFEE will go on to use a second flawed argument to justify its current stance. In an oral answer to the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd said:
  "Many Scottish universities offer students with good A-levels the option of entering the second year of a four-year honours course, so it should be possible for students from England and Wales to get a Scottish degree after paying for the same number of years as they

  583
  would have taken to graduate at a university elsewhere in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 13 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 1028.]
  That assertion is not a solution for several reasons. Only a small number of non-Scottish United Kingdom students currently receive direct entry into the second year of undergraduate courses at Scottish universities, and that figure has decreased in the past three years. In percentage terms, more Scottish than English students gain access to the second year of university courses.
  Direct entry into the second year is not possible in all courses—nor is it advisable for educational reasons. The Association of University Teachers has stated:
  "many students find the transition too difficult and either drop down into first year or have to retake the second year."
  Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this debate is what it will cost to create a level playing field. The DFEE has estimated the total cost of funding the fourth-year tuition fee for English students attending Scottish universities at £1.5 million. That is a small part of the overall Government budget, but it will have a large effect on individual students and their families and on the Scottish higher education system.
  I would like to help the Minister by suggesting where he might find some of that money. During the summer, the Government spent £170 million on seven new Trident missiles. That commitment to weapons of mass destruction would abolish the fourth-year tuition tax for non-Scottish United Kingdom students for the next 100 years. In a choice between nuclear weapons and education, the SNP knows which priority should prevail.
  I shall address three key inconsistencies in the Government's position. Take, for example, a Scottish pupil who moves from North Berwick to Berwick shortly before he applies to a Scottish university. Even though that pupil has spent all his education years in the distinctive Scottish system, if eligible, he will be forced to pay the fourth-year fee due to his place of residence at the time of application. That is both absurd and unjust.
  The Department for Education and Employment's failure to recognise the uniqueness of the four-year degree and to fund students accordingly leaves an interesting paradox for the Minister. If an EU migrant worker living in London applies to a Scottish university for a four-year degree, under the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, the local authority will have to fund that course. The DFEE will have to make provisions for dealing with that request, so the mechanism will be in place to finance tuition fees for its students' fourth years at Scottish universities. The DFEE is discriminating against its own European nationals in favour of students from other member states.
  Lastly, the Minister is on record as stating:
  "Students who take a year out between two separate courses of higher education will have their eligibility reassessed as new entrants at the beginning of the new course."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 126–27.]
  That would leave the anomaly of a non-Scottish UK student successfully applying for a Scottish university course, funded by his local authority, then leaving and reapplying to the Scottish Office as a domiciled Scottish student for funding to change course. That student would presumably be entitled to fourth-year funding, and the Scottish Office would have the extra costs of paying for the whole of the higher education course fees for that student.
  584
  I trust that the Minister will use all his persuasive power to influence his colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment to reconsider their unsympathetic stance over this crucial issue.
  I never want to see in Scotland an education system where credit rating counts more than grade averages, or where bank balances count more than qualifications, with pay-as-you-learn in a two-tier system based on ability to pay rather than on ability to learn.
  That grates against the traditional Scottish education system, open to all who can benefit to the full extent of their abilities. The Minister and I both benefited from the grants system that his Government have now abolished. I guess that in opposition he would have agreed with me, but sadly in government he does not.
  The Scottish education tradition and the Scottish democratic intellect are well suited to the needs of the 21st century if—and only if—we play to their strengths and build on those traditions, and do not destroy them by restricting access and placing barriers to entry.
  This tuition fee unfairness is only one example of the general problem produced by the Government's policy. I hope that the Minister can convince his English colleagues to play their part in getting rid of such obvious discrimination against non-Scottish-domiciled UK students. It would not take much money for the Government to do that, and it would end that unfairness. I hope that he will so argue.
  10.16 pm
  The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): There is a slightly surreal quality to this debate, on several counts. I listened as closely as I could to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), and he did not seem to use the figure that he has been touting all day in Scotland and at a press conference in London. He alleges that the changes to the student funding system will cost the Scottish economy £200 million a year. Even by the standards of Scottish National party economics, that is a fantasy figure par excellence.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister should stop this fatuous nonsense. I pointed out that the McNicholl report stated that £210 million was put into the Scottish economy directly and indirectly through spending by United Kingdom students in Scotland. That is the total sum they contribute. Any reduction would have an immediate effect on the Scottish economy and the four-year honours degree, and would reduce the range of courses available in Scotland.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has talked so much gibberish today that I do not suppose that he knows what he said. I quote from his press release:
  "The likely impact is fewer English, Welsh and Northern Irish students at Scottish universities, and the loss of over £200 million which these students contribute to the general Scottish economy."
  I do not have to contradict the hon. Gentleman, as he has contradicted himself. He has been talking about the loss of £200 million to the Scottish economy on the radio all day. Unfortunately, sections of the media in Scotland give

  585
  credibility to the nonsense that he talks. The Scottish National party parliamentary group news release refers to the loss of over £200 million to the Scottish economy.
  Mr. Welsh rose—
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can talk for the entire half-hour, if he wants. Perhaps he will acknowledge that the document is not a forgery. He has issued a press release which states that the Scottish economy will lose £200 million.
  Mr. Welsh rose—
  Mr. Wilson: No, I will not give way. I shall respond to what the hon. Gentleman said.
  We have heard from the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that the collapse of Scottish education is imminent because of the changes to funding that have been made.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I may give way in a moment.
  Let me start with the latest application figures for St. Andrews—the university which has made the most noise about potential loss and about which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has spoken in apocalyptic terms. I am delighted to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that our latest understanding is that the application figures for St. Andrews show a 6 per cent. increase for the coming year from English- domiciled students. I suppose that that will allow the ever-opportunistic SNP to revert to its more familiar role of complaining about too many English students rather than too few.
  Mr. Welsh: Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Wilson: Where does a 6 per cent. increase in English-domiciled students' applications to St. Andrews leave the absurdities that we have been hearing from the hon. Gentleman tonight?
  Mr. Welsh: I should like the Minister to stick to the point. If the English Department for Education and Employment stood by its responsibilities, this anomaly of the discrimination against English and other students would be stopped. The Minister is simply indulging in party political banter. He should stop that nonsense and stick to the point of the debate, rather than misquoting other people.
  Mr. Wilson: I have quoted exactly what others say—to wit, the hon. Gentleman himself. He has said that there will be a £200 million loss to the Scottish economy. In order to retain a shred of credibility, he now has to link that specific prediction to the fact that applications for the coming session from English students to St. Andrews are up by 6 per cent. If he can do that, it will be a worthy achievement indeed.
  586
  There is a slight decrease overall in the number—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) seems to be trying to help the hon. Gentleman out. She is his parliamentary leader after all, and if she wants to stand by the claim that there will be a £200 million loss to the Scottish economy, she is welcome to do so. Equally, if she wants to quibble with the 6 per cent. increase in English applications to St. Andrews, she is welcome to do so.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give us an idea of the decrease in the number of overall applications to Scottish universities?
  Mr. Wilson: Were Ito do so, I would be going outside the terms of the debate as defined by the hon. Member for Angus. The hon. Gentleman wanted, in this rather unexpected burst of internationalism, to talk about the prospects for English students. I have just told the hon. Member for Moray—she apparently does not like the information—that the applications from English students to St. Andrews are up by 6 per cent. for next year.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: There is talk about English students, but 25 per cent. of the total non-Scottish students at Scottish universities are from Northern Ireland, yet the ratio in population of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom—England and Wales—must be very small. The reason for that is that there is a deficit on the Scottish ratio of 12,000 university places in Northern Ireland and on the Welsh ratio of 5,000. Those people go to Scottish universities because Scotland is proximate and the ambience suits them. Yet because of the absence of places, they will be punished by having to pay for a fourth year which is required by Scottish universities. Is that not discriminatory and unjust?
  Mr. Wilson: It is good to hear a sensible point, about which there is a reasonable argument. But the responsibility for the funding of Northern Ireland students rests with the Northern Ireland Office. Equally, 40 per cent. of students from throughout the United Kingdom, certainly those in Scotland, will pay nothing at all in tuition fees. But it is a decision for the funding body, and in that case the funding body is the Northern Ireland Office, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman should take up the matter.
  I must make progress in the time that remains. There is a slight decrease overall in the number of applications from outside Scotland. However, that is certainly less than the 6 per cent. increase in admissions that took place this session in advance of the changes in student support arrangements. So, overall, there is only a marginal change in the numbers wanting to study in Scotland, and, of course, applications are still coming in.
  The SNP claims about the loss to the Scottish economy are self-evidently absurd, both in the light of the figures quoted and also on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's apparent equation of applications with admissions to Scottish universities, which will, as usual, be heavily over-subscribed this year.
  If the hon. Gentleman is worried about there not being enough applications from England, I can tell him that there are already more than 20,000. There will be 30,000 new students in Scottish universities this year and there

  587
  are more applications to Scottish universities from English students than there are from Scottish students. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman's internationalism. If he thinks that it is a blissful state of affairs that 44 per cent. of St. Andrews' students and 48 per cent. of Edinburgh's students come from outwith Scotland but within the UK, that is his business. Perhaps he should start a campaign to get more English students into Paisley university, for instance, which has 1 per cent. of English students.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to be ignorant of the fact that it is a long-established practice for students with appropriate A-levels to have the option of entering the second year of some Scottish degree courses. The recommendation that more should be encouraged to pursue that option has come not from the Government but from the Garrick report, "Future of Scottish Higher Education". Let me read paragraph 4.59 of the report to the hon. Gentleman, as I doubt whether he has read it.
  Mr. Welsh: I have read it.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that he has read it, so he knows that it is not a Government proposal. He spoke approvingly of the Garrick report, yet he asserts to the House that it is the Government who recommend that more students should enter the second year. If he has read the report, he must know that it is a Garrick report recommendation. I shall read paragraph 4.59, as I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it. It says:
  "The A level curriculum is well-established and understood. Scottish higher education institutions should, therefore, act immediately to consider how advanced standing can be achieved in more cases."
  In case that was not clear enough, recommendation 6 of the report says:
  "We recommend to higher education providers that they should clearly specify their requirements for combinations of A levels which will lead to entry with advanced standing within the new qualifications framework."
  It is remarkable, if the hon. Gentleman has read that report, that he has only now concluded that a modest increase in the number of A-level entrants into the second year represents a threat to the very fabric of Scotland's universities. The question that I put to the hon. Gentleman, to give him due time to think about it, is whether the SNP holds the same view about Scottish school leavers who will hold advanced highers, because they too are likely to have advanced entry into higher education on Scottish university courses.
  I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks, because we have had so many contradictory quotations from him. On 22 July 1997, in the Press and Journal, he said that Scottish students
  "as a whole receive 5 years of free schooling, compared with 6 years in the rest of the UK.
  But they are now to be penalised by being forced to pay fees … for one more year than their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts."
  That was a statement of the obvious. The Garrick report said that we should do something about it, and we did, so it will not happen. The anomaly has been resolved.
  588
  However, on 4 November 1997, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "The weakness of the Government's proposals is best highlighted by one anomaly. Scottish domiciled students studying in Scotland will pay for only three years of their four year degree course, while English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students will be forced to pay for the full four years."
  As a graduate of a Scottish university, the hon. Gentleman is capable of simple arithmetic. On 22 July, he thought that it was wrong that Scottish students who did five years at school and four years at university should be asked to pay more than English students, and we addressed that anomaly. Five and four make nine, but six and four make 10. He then asked that the same rule should apply to students who do 10 years. What is the hon. Gentleman's position? Does he think that there should be parity on the basis of nine years, or that nine in Scotland is the same as 10 in England?
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister is betraying why he is so out of touch with educational opinion in Scotland, and why students are up in arms at the Government's policy. I am sure that he would not have supported such a proposal in opposition. The SNP's position is straightforward: we oppose the principle of tuition fees. However, if the Government want to introduce them, they should do so fairly rather than in a discriminatory way. The Government's policy is at fault.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may have some feelings in this matter, but in making contradictory statements, he has made a fool of himself and his party. Everything that he has said today contradicts everything that he said previously. I know his position—I looked up the early-day motion that he tabled, in which he asserts the basic right to Government-funded further and higher education for all. That is a general principle, but it takes us back not only to the position before 1992 but to the position before 1979.
  I heard the hon. Gentleman on the radio this morning say that he wants the abolition of tuition fees and maintenance loans. When he and I went to university, one in 14 Scottish school leavers had that privilege, whereas now almost one in two have it. He wants exactly the same funding arrangements now as there were in the 1960s.
  For the first time in Scottish political history, the SNP will be answerable for some of its mad financial calculations. We shall cost the proposal as enunciated by the hon. Gentleman in his early-day motion. If there are to be no fees or loans, that is a blissful state of affairs, but it will cost a vast sum of money. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say whether that is the SNP's spending commitment—yes or no. He has been very free in intervening, so will he answer that question?
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

WALES

  Referendum
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what checks were made to ensure that all counting areas involved in the Welsh referendum were following the same procedure in relation to new guidance provided following representations from Denbighshire on the night of 18 September; and if he will make a statement. [23133]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Decisions as to what regard should be had to the advice given by the Chief Counting Officer on the night of 18 September were for individual Counting Officers to take at their discretion; it would not have been appropriate for my officials to make inquiries on that matter during the course of the various counts.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he sought, and from whom, following representations received relating to the conduct of the count of the Welsh referendum. [23157]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I became aware of concerns in my constituency capacity in respect of the count in Caerphilly County Borough. I asked the Counting Officer to consider these and advise me of the outcome. He replied on 29 September. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library of the House. I have received no other representations on this matter.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Labour Party officials in his official capacity concerning the Welsh devolution referendum count in Caerphilly; on what dates these discussions took place; and if he will make a statement on the content of these discussions. [23166]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who gave the instructions for guidance to counting officers to be changed during the counting of the Welsh referendum votes; when this instruction was given; and what action was taken to ensure that the new guidance was followed. [23159]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Chief Counting Officer decided to issue supplementary advice in response to the representations received from Denbighshire Counting Officer; this decision was made at approximately 11 pm on the night of 18 September. The advice was telephoned to Counting Officers. It was for them to decide what regard should be had to it, and it would not have been appropriate for officials to make further inquiries during the course of the counts as to how Counting Officers were exercising their discretion.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he was first notified of allegations of irregularities in the count of the Welsh devolution referendum count at Caerphilly. [23171]
  250
  Mr. Ron Davies
  I received verbal representations in my constituency capacity shortly after the referendum on 18 September.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what input into guidance to counting officers in the Welsh referendum(a) he and (b) his officials provided. [23267]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I made no input. My officials prepared draft guidance for the Chief Counting Officer to issue, drawing on guidance issued by the Home Office for the 1997 General Election.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) correspondence an (b) discussions his special adviser has had relating to the Welsh devolution referendum count at Caerphilly. [23135]

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) correspondence and (b) discussions his special adviser has had relating to the Welsh devolution referendum count at Caerphilly. [23169]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Neither of my advisers either corresponded about, or discussed, the count before Tuesday 6 January.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what hour the chief counting officer gave new guidance to counting officers in relation to the counting of votes during the Welsh referendum count. [23151]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  At approximately 11pm.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) of 12 January 1997,Official Report, columns 39–41, by what means he became aware of complaints made by Caerphilly County Borough Council relating to aspects of the Welsh referendum count; and which representatives of his Department attended meetings at which such irregularities were discussed. [23168]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I am not aware of any complaints made by Caerphilly County Borough Council.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his discussions with the chief counting officer during the counting of the referendum votes in Wales. [23156]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I had no discussions with the Chief Counting Officer during the counting of the referendum votes in Wales.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department gave to returning officers relating to the Welsh devolution referendum counts in Wales; and if he will publish this guidance. [23163]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on 12 January 1997,Official Report, columns 39–41, and to the supplementary letter I sent the hon. Member on the same day. Copies of that letter, and of the guidance issued to Counting Officers, are in the Libraries.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with his Department's officials since the result of the referendum was made known relating to the Welsh devolution referendum count at Caerphilly; and what was the date of such discussions. [23155]
  251
  Mr. Ron Davies
  I had no discussions with officials on this matter before 6 January, the date of publication of articles in The Scotsman newspaper referring to the count at Caerphilly. In light of that publication, I sought information from officials as to whether they had received any complaints or correspondence relating to that count, and I informed them of action I had taken in my constituency capacity on the matter.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with his officials relating to irregularities during referendum counts in Wales. [23161]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Following publication of press articles in The Scotsman and the Western Mail, I have discussed with my officials the various allegations made, and the terms of my answer to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), on 12 January 1997, Official Report, columns 39–41.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he made relating to the count of the votes at Caerphilly to the Chief Counting Officer for Wales(a) prior to and (b) after 1 January. [23152]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  (a) None. (b) None.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the Chief Executive of Caerphilly County Council since 1 January; and if he will make a statement. [23158]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  (a) In my constituency capacity, I telephoned the Chief Executive on 6 January, following publication in The Scotsman of articles about the Caerphilly count. The purpose of my inquiry was to seek information about any outstanding complaints or concerns relating to the count. I was informed that there were no such complaints or concerns outstanding, all matters having been answered to the complainants' satisfaction in a letter from the Chief Executive dated 28 October 1997.

  (b) None.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training and guidance advice given to counting officers conducting counts during the Welsh referendum. [23162]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have made no such assessment, but I consider the counting procedures to have complied fully with the Parliamentary Election Rules which Parliament stipulated should apply to the referendum.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the representations he has received relating to errors that were made during the Welsh referendum count. [23153]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  As at 12 January, I had received no representations and I am unaware of any errors that may have been made.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the correspondence between the Welsh Office and other bodies relating to the Welsh devolution referendum count at Caerphilly; and if he will make public this correspondence. [23160]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There has been no such correspondence.
  252
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has received in relation to the count of the votes in the Welsh referendum in Caerphilly; [23129]

  (2) what reports he has received in relation to the counting of votes in the Welsh referendum in Caerphilly. [23173]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I received verbal representations in my constituency capacity shortly after the referendum on 18 September. I requested the Chief Executive to consider them, and he wrote to me again in my constituency capacity, on 29 September. That letter is the only report I have received. A copy of it, and of my reply of 20 October, are in the Libraries.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for how long his Department proposes to retain the ballot papers relating to the Welsh referendum; and for what purpose. [23154]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The papers will be retained for one year from 18 September 1997. It is considered appropriate to follow the practice adopted in respect of ballot papers at parliamentary elections.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had in his official capacity with outside bodies relating to the Welsh referendum count at Caerphilly; and if he will make a statement. [23165]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice his officials issued relating to the counting of spoilt ballot papers during the Welsh devolution referendum count. [23270]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Following the Chief Counting Officer's decision, in response to a request from the Denbighshire Counting Officer, to issue further advice on the treatment of ballot papers with the word "No" written opposite the "I do not agree" box, officials telephoned other Counting Officers to inform them that this advice had been given. The officials were acting in support of the Chief Counting Officer, and not on my behalf or with my knowledge.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what verbal advice was given during the Welsh devolution referendum count to returning officers seeking clarification on the counting of spoilt ballot papers. [23150]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on 12 January 1997,Official Report, columns 39–41.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22932]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Today.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has
  253
  been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating (a) who accompanied him or her (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23248]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  No overseas visits have been made since 1 May 1997 by myself or either Minister in my Department on which I or they have been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the White Paper on the future of the NHS in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [23782]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Our White Paper on the future of the NHS in Wales, "Putting Patients First", is published today. The White Paper has been laid before Parliament and copies are also available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

  "Putting Patients First" fulfils the undertakings we made before coming into office. It abolishes the divisive internal market in the NHS and charts a course for NHS Wales which will restore it as a truly national service of quality, responsive to the needs of its patients.

  Our objectives are clear. An NHS which is people centred; an NHS which is delivering quality services in a seamless and collaborative way; an NHS which makes full use of new technologies and makes best practice common practice. "Putting Patients First" provides the framework within which these objectives will be pursued. Fragmentation, inequality and bureaucracy will be replaced by integrated services, collaboration and improved efficiency, saving £50 million over the lifetime of this Parliament for reinvesting in patient care.

  Health Authorities and NHS trusts will be retained with new duties and responsibilities for improving health and for working co-operatively with others. We will honour our commitment to reinforce the place of primary care through the creation of Local Health Groups. These will allow professionals to take the lead, in co-operation with others, in planning and providing services locally for the benefit of their patients. They will have budgets and new freedoms to use the available resources in the best interests of their patients. Through these Groups, all primary care professionals, social services departments and others will be able to address the needs of their patients, without the divisions and inequalities of the GP fundholding scheme.

  "Putting Patients First" sets out our vision for the NHS in Wales with measures suited to Welsh needs. It lays the foundations for the work of the National Assembly and gives NHS Wales a clear framework within which to address the health of our people and improve the health services they are due.

  Government Residential Property
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how his Department has performed against last year's targets for reducing empty government residential property; and what new targets have been set for 1997–98. [23783]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I am pleased to announce that my Department was successful in meeting the target set for disposal of empty government homes in 1996–97.
  254
  We are continuing to set challenging targets for disposal or bringing back into use those properties which become empty and hope to be able to maintain our success over the coming year.

  Details of achievements against targets for 1996–97 and new targets for 1997–98 are set out as follows:

  Empty Government residential property Welsh Office achievements 1996–97

  Total stock 1 April 1996

  Empty stock 1 April 1996

  1996–97 target for disposal or bringing back into use

  Achievement against target

  1243

  50

  39

  39

  1 Includes NHS.

  Welsh Office targets 1997–98

  Total stock 1 April 1997

  Empty stock 1 April 1997

  Target for disposal or bringing back into use

  1114

  33

  33

  1 Excludes NHS.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Investment Decisions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what account he takes of scripture in making investment decisions. [22940]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners' ethical investment policy is exercised in the context of their duty to manage their inherited assets to provide financial support for the clergy of the Church of England, especially in areas of need and opportunity.

  Reconciling their legal duty to achieve the best return for their beneficiaries with their Christian heritage and with the views of Church people is central to the Commissioners' mission.

  The Ethical Investment Working Group set up in October 1994 as a joint venture between the Commissioners and the other central Church investing bodies keeps their ethical investment policy under constant review.

PRIME MINISTER

  Paymaster General (Letter)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when he and the law officers approved the threat of legal action in a letter on behalf of the Paymaster General to newspapers. [22586]

  The Prime Minister
  The main purpose of the letters sent to the Sunday Times and The Observer on 8 December on behalf of the Paymaster General was to set the facts straight following the publication the previous day of inaccurate and misleading reports. Neither I nor the Law Officers approved these letters before they

  255
  were sent. However, the Law Officers were consulted subsequently on the issues relating to possible future legal proceedings.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Trans-European Transport Network
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which United Kingdom ports on the East Coast have been excluded from the list for the Trans-European Transport Network proposed by the EU Commission; and if he will obtain from the Commission its reasons for excluding any of the United Kingdom ports on the East Coast. [22733]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that the EU Commission's proposal includes all ports with a total annual freight turnover of 1 million tonnes or 200,000 international passengers or which provide connections between land links of the Trans-European Network (TEN).

  The following English east coast ports are included under the new criteria:

  Folkestone

  Dover

  Ramsgate

  Medway

  London

  Harwich

  Ipswich

  Felixstowe

  Great Yarmouth

  King's Lynn

  Boston

  Grimsby/Immingham

  Goole

  Hull

  Tees and Hartlepool

  Sunderland

  Tyne.

  My officials will be discussing the proposal further with the Commission. If the hon. Member has any particular concerns, we would be pleased to know of them.

  Road Accidents (Diabetic Drivers)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of how many fatal vehicular accidents in England and Wales during each of the past 10 years there was evidence that the major contributory factor lay with drivers who were insulin-dependent diabetes sufferers. [22802]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We do not have comprehensive figures as information on the medical circumstances of drivers involved in accidents cannot be readily collected. Studies have shown, however, that a significant proportion of collapses at the wheel have been the result of hypoglycaemia, and there have been a number of accidents involving collapses over the years.

  Roadside Drainage Pipes
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what video material relating to damage to plastic roadside drainage pipes has been collated by the Department of Transport; and if it is available for public examination. [22759]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Dr. Alan Whitehead, dated 15 January 1998:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to reply to your recent question about what video material relating to damage to plastic roadside drainage pipes has been collated by the Department of Transport, and if it is available for public examination.
  Video surveys of roadside drainage pipes have been undertaken for the Highways Agency by it's Maintaining Agents on certain sections of the trunk road network to assist with the maintenance of the network drainage. A sample of the surveys has been analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory for the Agency as part of an ongoing research project to investigate the performance of all types of drainage pipes. Statistical information identifying defects for all types of pipes, including plastic pipes, have been produced from these data.
  This research information is as yet unpublished but it can be made available on request. To view this information please contact Santi Santhalingam on 0171 921 2215.

  Rail Passengers and Freight
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will revise passenger and freight access charges to stimulate greater use of the rail network. [22840]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The setting of access charges is the responsibility of the Rail Regulator. He has recently published a consultation document about the key issues and proposed framework for future access arrangements to assist in determining revised charges which will come into effect on 1 April 2001.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek to negotiate an amendment to the Channel Tunnel Treaty allowing for the annual publication of a comprehensive safety report. [22825]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority already publishes an Annual Report on its activities, which covers all aspects of Channel Tunnel safety.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the report into the evacuation exercise carried out recently in the channel tunnel. [23207]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A report on the binational emergency exercise which took place on 10–11 January in the Channel Tunnel will be incorporated in the Annual Report of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority for 1997–98. A copy of this Report will be placed in the Library of the House on its publication.
  257
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether he intends to seek the renegotiation of Clause 33.3 of the channel tunnel treaty which prevents the publication of safety information relating to the tunnel. [23206]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. Clause 33.3 of the Channel Tunnel Concession Agreement requires the parties to the Agreement, and the Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority, to hold in confidence material provided to them. However, Eurotunnel is free to publish the safety information which it produces, and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority publishes an annual report on its activities, covering all aspects of Channel Tunnel safety. Copies of this report are placed in the Library.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of Railtrack's performance in fulfilling its statutory obligations with respect to(a) maintenance of the rail infrastructure and (b) upgrading the system; and if he will list the figures for expenditure on both items. [22823]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack's statutory obligations are reflected in its network licence, which is monitored by the Rail Regulator. Modifications to that licence now require the company to publish detailed information on the level of expenditure for both the maintenance and enhancement of the rail network. Railtrack's next Network Management Statement is to be published in March 1998.

  Railtrack's core investment in the first half of 1997–98 had increased by 38 per cent.—to £520 million—compared to the first half of 1996–97. We have made it clear that we expect to see further improvements in investments levels.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with Railtrack the present and future access charges to the Railtrack system. [22824]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Access charges are a matter for the Rail Regulator. The Regulator has recently invited comments from consultees, including Railtrack, on the issues which might inform his decisions on revised charges, which will come into effect on 1 April 2001.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date(a) he and (b) The Minister for Transport last used a train in the course of their officials duties. [22927]

  Mr. Prescott
  I last used the train on Monday 12 January and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport on Tuesday 6 January.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of heavy goods vehicles that have evaded excise duty in the last 12 months. [21081]
  258
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is estimated that, at any one time, some 13,000 heavy goods vehicles are evading vehicle excise duty. This represents around 3 per cent. of these vehicles.

  Road Traffic Reduction Act
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends issuing guidance to local authorities on the implementation of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. [23367]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Draft Guidance to local authorities on implementing the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act is being issued for public consultation today. Comments on the draft guidance are being sought by 20 April 1998. I am arranging for copies of the consultation documents to be placed in the library.

  Town and Country Planning
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce his policy for the future of town and country planning in England; and if he will make a statement. [23787]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today placed copies of my Policy Statement in the Library of the House. This Statement confirms that we shall retain the principles of the town and country planning system established by the post-war Labour Government. For 50 years, these have demonstrated their flexibility and served us well. There are, however, a number of missing dimensions that this Government will put in place to cope with the challenges they now face.

  These are:
  the European context for planning in this country;
  clearer statements of national policy for the small number of projects where decentralisation of decision-making is not possible;
  effective arrangements for regional planning so that more issues can be resolved at this level;
  a continuous search for improvements in local efficiency; and
  a willingness to consider economic instruments and other modern tools to help meet the objectives of positive planning.

  My Policy Statement on Modernising Planning describes how we will fill these gaps. As part of this package, I am also today placing in the Library and publishing a consultation paper on the future of Regional Planning Guidance in England.

  Roads and Rail (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) representations have been received from and (b) meetings have taken place with representatives of East Sussex County Council since 2 May in respect of (i) the proposal to reinstate the Lewes-Uckfield railway line, (ii) the A27 Lewes-Polegate trunk road and (iii) the proposed A27 Polegate bypass. [22944]
  259
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since 2 May 1997, there have been no representations made by East Sussex County Council to the Department, nor meetings held, regarding proposals to reinstate the Lewes-Uckfield railway line.

  Representations on the A27 Lewes-Polegate schemes, and the A27 Polegate Bypass scheme, has been received from East Sussex County Council in the form of a documented response to the Roads Review. We are currently considering the comments made by the County Council alongside the many other we have received. East Sussex County Council participated in a Regional Roads Review Seminar, held last October, which covered these schemes. In addition, as part of our consideration of the Accelerated Roads Review, Ministers met local MPs to discuss the proposed Weald and Downland DBFO project. Representatives of East Sussex County Council were part of the delegations accompanying Members at these meetings.

  Car-free Cities Project
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will encourage more major authorities in the United Kingdom to participate in the European Union Car-Free Cities project as part of his policy to reduce urban congestion, pollution and environmentally damaging emissions. [23125]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are always interested in effective and innovative approaches to tackling congestion and pollution. Local authorities may well benefit from participating in the Car Free Cities project, or other similar schemes. A number already do, and the Government would certainly encourage others to consider following suit. But such decisions are best taken at the local level, as authorities consider how best to meet their statutory duties under the National Air Quality Strategy and the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions information has been withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality from reports placed on the public register on the effects of the release of genetically modified organisms. [22877]

  Mr. Meacher
  To date, no information contained in reports on the release of genetically modified organisms has been withheld from the public register on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which advisory bodies are consulted in advance of a decision to withhold information from the public register of applications for consents to release genetically modified organisms on the grounds of national security. [22882]

  Mr. Meacher
  We cannot envisage any circumstances where it would be necessary to withhold information from the public register on the grounds of national security.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions following consent to release new information has been made available under section 111 of the 260
  Environmental Protection Act 1990 regarding risks of damage to the environment by the release of genetically modified organisms. [22879]

  Mr. Meacher
  The relevant section of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the provision of new information regarding risks of releases is section 112. To date, no new information has been notified by a consent holder.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions information has been withheld from the public register for reasons of prevention to damage to the environment in respect of(a) commercial and (b) other applications for consent to release genetically modified organisms. [22880]

  Mr. Meacher
  On no occasion has information been withheld from the public register for reasons of prevention of damage to the environment in respect of(a) commercial and (b) other applications to release genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many reports on the effects of release have been received in respect of consents to release genetically modified organisms. [22876]

  Mr. Meacher
  To date, there have been 133 consents granted for the release of genetically modified organisms in Great Britain. Under section 112 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, consent holders are required to notify the Secretary of State of the effects of any release on the environment. For every consent, a report must be submitted at the end of the release and for many consents a period of post-release monitoring is required for which a report must also be submitted. These reports are placed on my Department's public register and in the regional offices of the Environment Agency, and are freely available to the general public on request.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions information has been withheld from the public register for reasons of national security in respect of(a) commercial and (b) other applications for consent to release genetically modified organisms. [22883]

  Mr. Meacher
  On no occasion has information been withheld from the public register for reasons of national security in respect of(a) commercial and, (b) other applications to release genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions reports on the release of genetically modified organisms have revealed new risks of damage to the environment. [22878]

  Mr. Meacher
  To date, reports on the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have not revealed any new information regarding risks to human health or the environment.

  In addition to these reports, my Department funds a research programme to identify possible new risks of the release of genetically modified organisms to human health and the environment.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him or her and (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23257]

  Mr. Prescott
  My wife accompanied me to The Hague on 26 May 1997 when I represented the Government at the Marshall Plan Commemoration. The travel costs to public funds were £649.04 and we stayed at the Ambassador's Residence.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the advantages of the award of sports lottery funds to state primary schools in those areas of social and economic deprivation identified by the Sports Council in its priority areas initiative scheme. [21392]

  Mr. Banks
  We have not made a formal assessment but we are aware that there is potential for good schemes of this kind.

  The English Sports Council is, of course, the distributor in England of Lottery funds for good causes on, or connected with, sport. While it has no specific policies pertaining solely to primary schools, I understand that all educational establishments are eligible to apply for support from the Lottery Sports Fund (LSF). Under the School Community Sports Initiative (SCSI), the LSF may provide up to 80 per cent. support where applicants can meet the Community Use criteria. Schemes within the Council's Priority Areas Initiative can apply for up to 90 per cent. award.

  Primary Schools will also be eligible to apply for funding from the New Opportunities Fund for out of school hours projects. The target is for at least a quarter of all primary schools to be undertaking such projects by 2001.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of National Lottery funding for sport has been distributed to(a) areas of social and economic deprivation as defined by the Sports Council in its priority areas initiative and (b) severely deprived areas as defined by the Sports Council in its document Eighty Five Priority Area-designated Wards since November 1994. [21394]

  Mr. Banks
  I am advised by the English Sports Council that there have been 344 awards (14 per cent.), totalling £253,529,941 (39 per cent.) in the Priority Areas. Information on successful applications by Wards is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of National Lottery funding for sport has been distributed to priority areas as designated by the Rural Development Commission; and 262
  how much has been distributed to (a) local public sports clubs with open membership, (b) state secondary schools and colleges, (c) state primary schools, (d) private secondary schools and colleges, (e) private primary schools, (f) Oxford and Cambridge colleges, (g) other universities and colleges, (g) other universities and colleges, (h) local sports clubs with limited public access, (i) other projects and (j) individuals since November 1994. [21395]

  Mr. Banks
  Information on awards specifically to Rural Development Areas (RDAs) is not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. However, the English Sports Council have made a total of 823 awards (33 per cent.) to District Councils containing RDAs totalling £126,679,596 (19 per cent.). The other information requested is as follows:

  (a) It is a requirement for every successful Lottery award to have public access. Separate information on sports clubs is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) State secondary schools and colleges: 143 awards totalling £48,260,814.

  (c) State primary schools: 8 awards totalling £8,478,080.

  (d) Private secondary schools and colleges: 6 awards totalling £2,869,572.

  (e) None.

  (f) None.

  (g) Other universities and colleges: Higher Education: 16 awards totalling £28,981,052. Further Education: 14 awards totalling £9,990,236.

  (h) See (a) above.

  (i) Other projects:

  Capital projects: 2,282 awards totalling £566,882,972.

  World Class Events revenue awards: 9 events totalling £4,361,984.

  (j) World Class Performance revenue awards: £23,000,000 has been distributed among 1,640 individuals.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22938]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I last used a train in the course of official duties on Sunday 30 November to travel to Birmingham for the Competition Climbing World Cup Final at the National Indoor Arena.

  Lottery Applications (Basildon)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications have been made to the National Lottery distributing bodies from organisations in the Basildon constituency; how many have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in their applications; and what has been the total value of successful applications in each year. [22826]
  263
  Mr. Banks
  To date, 15 awards totalling £1,018,513 have been made to organisations in the Basildon constituency. Eighty-four applications have been unsuccessful. A breakdown of successful applications by calendar year is set out in the table.

  Information on successful Lottery applicants can be found on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Year

  Total award amount £

  Total number of awards

  1995

  170,000

  4

  1996

  555,477

  5

  1997

  293,036

  6

  Grand totals

  1,018,513

  15

  Historic Royal Palaces
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his plans are for the future management of the historic royal palaces; and if he will make a statement. [23684]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The historic royal palaces are currently managed by an Executive Agency of my Department, which has progressively reduced its call on Exchequer support since its establishment in 1989. I have given careful consideration to ways of building on that performance and bringing an end to Exchequer support, while safeguarding the fabric of the Palaces and maintaining the quality of visitors' experience. I have concluded that these benefits will best be realised through establishing the historic royal Palaces as a Non-Departmental Public Body.

  I therefore propose to apply for the grant by Her Majesty the Queen of a Charter establishing the new body and to seek Parliamentary approval of an Order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to enter into a contract for it to carry out my day to day responsibilities for the management of the historic royal palaces. An application for charitable status will be made to the Charity Commission.

  The new body would be established under a Board of Trustees to bring a wider range of expertise to the running of the historic royal palaces. I propose that the Board comprise three members appointed by Her Majesty the Queen and five appointed by me. The Chairman would be appointed by The Queen on my advice.

  I can reassure the current staff of the Agency, who have done so much to secure its success, that their terms and conditions of service will be protected on their transfer to the new body. New pension arrangements, broadly comparable to those under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, will be put in place. The Chief Executive of the Agency will now take forward discussions with staff representatives on the detailed implications of the proposed arrangements.

  Exchequer funding is set to reduce to some £4 million in 1998–99, but I expect the new body to continue the Agency's success in increasing income and that its new status will give greater financial flexibility and open up fresh sources of income, so that the need for Exchequer funds can be brought rapidly to an end.
  264
  I should emphasise that the new arrangements would apply only to the historic royal palaces, which are currently managed by the Agency, and do not affect the palaces which remain in use and are managed on my behalf by the Royal Household. The changes would not alter the ownership of the historic royal palaces or my responsibility for their management. I shall remain answerable to Parliament for their care and presentation.

  The new body would operate on the basis of an annual plan and agreed performance targets. The National Audit Office would continue to have full rights of access, both to carry out the annual audit of the accounts and to undertake value for money studies. Annual Reports and Accounts will be presented to Parliament and the Chief Executive will be liable to be summoned to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts and other Select Committees of this House.

  Subject to the approvals to which I have referred, the new body would be established to take over the management of the historic royal palaces from 1 April this year.

  The Historic Royal Palaces agency has been a highly successful Executive Agency. It has achieved major improvements in the conservation and presentation of the palaces, while reducing the call on taxpayers' support. I want to build on that success, bringing in new skills and resources to enhance the palaces and their attractions still further for millions of future visitors.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date she last used a train in the course of her official duties. [22937]

  Clare Short
  I last used a train in the course of my official duties on 17 December 1997.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which she or any other Minister in her Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him or her and (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23255]

  Clare Short
  Neither I nor the Under-Secretary have been accompanied on overseas visits under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23262]
  265
  The Attorney-General
  I was accompanied on my visit to Dublin on 17–18 September 1997 by my wife and an official. The total cost to public funds was £1,212.50.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Attorney-General on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22930]

  The Attorney-General
  I travelled to Cardiff by train on 12 December 1997 to visit the Crown Prosecution Service office there.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence the Government have submitted to the Low Pay Commission; and if it will make such evidence public. [23045]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government will be submitting written evidence to the Low Pay Commission shortly. The evidence will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the projects on which launch aid had been granted before, and on which payment was outstanding on, 1 May 1997, the total sum granted in each case and the payments (i) received in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 and (ii) projected for 1997–98. [22980]

  Mr. Battle
  The following table details all the projects on which launch aid was outstanding at 1 May 1997 (all figures in £ million), together with amounts received by the Government in the form of levy payments for years 1995–96 and 1996–97. Forecast receipts are not disclosed in advance of the end of the financial year for reasons of commercial confidentiality; such information may be market sensitive in cases where the Companies concerned have not published their financial results for the relevant period.

  £ million

  Project

  Total sum granted

  Payments received

  1995–96

  1996–97

  A320 Family of Aircraft

  249.3

  29.3

  42.7

  A330/340 Aircraft

  447.1

  Nil

  Nil

  RB211-535 Aeroengine

  261.8

  13.5

  15.2

  RB211-524 Aeroengine

  177.6

  1.5

  2.4

  V2500 Aeroengine

  60.0

  2.0

  3.7

  EH101 Helicopter

  60.0

  Nil

  Nil

  Lear 45 Executive Jet

  17.7

  Nil

  Nil

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the projects which have been granted launch aid since 1 May 1997, the sum granted and the number of jobs secured. [22981]
  266
  Mr. Battle
  On the 12 November 1997, the Government announced a long term investment of up to £200 million in Rolls-Royce plc's large engine programme. The investment is expected to secure 16,000 jobs in the Company and its UK suppliers.

  No other projects have been granted Launch Aid since 1 May 1997.

  Enemy Property
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to publish the report on British policy towards enemy property during and after the Second World War; and what action she will take. [23908]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs announced on 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 641 that the Government had commissioned a research project, to examine papers relevant to the Trading with the Enemy legislation under which the property of residents of enemy countries was confiscated during the Second World War. The project which has been co-ordinated by the FCO in close partnership with the DTI is nearing completion. The Government are considering the project's findings and will publish their response together with the report soon.

  The Government, however, recognise that some of the information currently held at the Public Record Office will be of particular interest to Holocaust survivors or their families who may wish to check their family history. The Government therefore intend to publish a list of the names and other details of those who had their property seized under the Trading with the Enemy legislation. This cannot be a complete list as many individual case records have not been retained. However officials are examining the remaining records to see what information can be provided and it is estimated that the list will cover some 25,000 names. It is intended to publish the list on the Internet as soon as possible but the size and complexity of the task makes it difficult to be specific on the timing at this stage. The Government are committed to openness on this issue and believe that the publication of the report and of the list of names should make a large contribution to the public's understanding of this complex subject and help the relatives of holocaust victims to research their family history.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) of 18 December 1997,Official Report, column 308, concerning public consultation on the proposed European Biotechnology Patent Directive, if she will ensure that representatives from (a) other political parties and (b) groups ethically opposed to biotechnology, will be invited to the events he plans to host. [22914]

  Mr. Battle
  The purpose of the discussion meeting I shall be hosting next month is to determine how best to develop a public consultation activity with a view to develop a consensus. The focus will therefore be on the process associated with this type of activity, rather than a discussion of the issues raised by biotechnology as this would pre-judge the public attitudes, which we are seeking to understand.
  267
  I shall be inviting people based upon their relevant experience and ability to contribute to the stated purpose of the meeting rather than on the basis of their views of the biological sciences.

  The public activity to be held in the summer will of course have no value unless there is access to a wide range of informed opinion to draw on as providers of evidence to the exercise.

  Nuclear Fusion Research
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to commission further research into nuclear fusion; and if she will make a statement on progress. [23463]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) carry out an on-going programme of research into nuclear fusion. This is supported by my Department, and it forms part of the European Union's fusion programme. Later this year, the UKAEA will complete and commission an important new experimental device—the mega-amp spherical tokamak (MAST).

  Both the European and UK programmes have made progress in the last year. The Joint European Torus achieved world-record values for fusion power and fusion energy. On a smaller scale, the UKAEA's small tight aspect ratio tokamak (START) achieved world record values for the efficiency of plasma confinement. Although the research is meeting and exceeding its targets, it is still thought to be at least 50 years before we could build commercial fusion power stations.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the allocation of the science budget. [23909]

  Mr. Battle
  I have discussed the allocations with the Director General of Research Councils and have decided that, subject to Parliamentary approval of the Supply Estimates in due course, the Science Budget of £1,338.326 million should be allocated as follows:

  Science Budget allocations

  £ million

  Allocation 1997–98

  Allocation 1998–99

  BBSRC

  183.300

  185.739

  ESRC

  64.896

  65.990

  EPSRC

  386.373

  382.982

  MRC

  289.070

  290.208

  NERC

  165.116

  171.771

  PPARC

  191.850

  191.268

  International Subscription Reserve

  8.800

  3.028

  CCLRC

  1.450

  1.462

  Pensions

  11.530

  12.298

  Royal Society

  22.271

  22.621

  Royal Academy

  3.370

  3.436

  OST Initiatives

  2.302

  2.376

  Joint Research Equipment Initiative

  —

  4.147

  LINK/Foresight

  —

  1.000

  Total

  1,330.327

  1,338.326

  268
  An additional £4.2 million has been made available for the Joint Research Equipment Initiative to increase the £5.4 million already set aside by the Research Councils for the third round of the initiative.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Embassies (Fraud)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he will be taking in response to the recent National Audit Office report relating to fraud at British embassies. [22751]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continuously reappraise the adequacy of our financial management systems and staff resources at British Embassies to minimise the risk of fraud. The lessons learnt from the recent National Audit Office report forms part of this process. We have a dedicated Financial Compliance Unit to do this, as well as the full normal Internal Audit arrangements.

  European Committee of the Regions
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whom the United Kingdom has nominated for the second term of the European Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement. [23785]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following nominations have been forwarded to the Council of Ministers:

  Full Members

  (from English Local Government)

  George Gill CBE: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  John Battye: Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Pam Warhurst: Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Dennis Pettitt: Nottinghamshire County Council

  Ken Bodfish: Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority

  Albert Bore: Birmingham City Council

  Sally Powell: Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

  Jane Hore: Suffolk County Council

  Sir Ronald Watson CBE: Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Lord Bowness CBE DL: Croydon London Borough Council

  Paul White: Essex County Council

  Sir Simon Day: Devon County Council

  Lord Tope CBE: Sutton London Borough Council

  Dr. James Walsh RD: West Sussex County Council and Arun District Council

  Ruth Coleman: North Wiltshire District Council

  Milner Whiteman: Bridgnorth District Council

  (from Scottish Local Government)

  Hugh Henry: Renfrewshire Council

  Ian Stewart Hudghton: Angus Council

  Christine May: Fife Council

  Peter James Peacock: Highland Council

  (from Welsh Local Government)

  Brian Smith: Torfaen Borough Council

  Linda Mathews: Merthyr County Borough Council

  Reg Empey: Belfast City Council

  Denis Haughey: Cookstown District Council

  269
  Alternate Members

  (from English Local Government)

  Ian Swithenbank: Northumberland County Council

  Ruth Henig: Lancashire County Council

  Keith Billington: Rotheram Borough Council

  Peter Soulsby: Leicester Unitary Authority

  Toby Harris: Harringey London Borough Council

  Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Portsmouth Unitary Authority

  Diane Bunyan: Bristol Unitary Authority

  Sue Davies: The Wrekin Unitary Authority

  David Martin: Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Margaret Eaton: Bradford City Council

  Gordon Keymer: Tanbridge District Council

  Suzie Kemp: Newbury Unitary Authority

  Keith Whitmore: Manchester City Council

  Liz Tucker: Hereford and Worcester County Council

  Ros Scott: Suffolk County Council

  Peter Moore: Sheffield City Council

  (from Scottish Local Government)

  Irene Oldfather: North Ayrshire Council

  Marcus Humphrey: Aberdeenshire Council

  Joan Mitchell: Dumfries and Galloway Council

  Cormick Keenan McChord: Stirling Council

  (from Welsh Local Government)

  Doctor John Evans: Caerphilly County Borough Council

  Eurig Wyn: Gwynedd County Council

  (from Northern Ireland Local Government)

  George Savage: Craigavon Borough Council

  John Fee: Newry and Mourne District Council.

  In making these nominations, we have sought, in consultation with local government, to provide a delegation which is appropriately representative of all of the United Kingdom, which provides appropriate expertise, and which takes account of the current political balance within United Kingdom local government.

  EU Council
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European European Union for January; and if he will list the major European Union events for the next six months. [23786]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Councils are scheduled:

  Monthly forecast of business for January 1998

  Venue

  Event

  19 January

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  19–20 January

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  26–27 January

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  29–30 January

  Birmingham

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  19 January: ECOFIN Council

  Presidency work programme—Commission work programme: Presentation and debate.

  Preparation of Stages III of EMU.

  Reduced VAT on labour-intensive services.

  270

  Council Regulation on allocation of Financial Intermediation Services indirectly measured.

  19–20 January: Agriculture Council

  Statement of Presidency aims.

  Agri-environment Regulation (2078/92) and Forestry Regulation (2080/92): Commission reports.

  Amendments to Regulation 404/93 (possible item).

  Reform of tobacco regime (possible item).

  Promotion of quality beef and veal.

  Potato starch quotas.

  World Trade Organisation dispute on hormones.

  Veterinary equivalence agreements.

  Vehicle standards for carriage of livestock.

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (possible item).

  26–27 January: General Affairs Council

  Presidency Programme: Public debate.

  Enlargement: EU negotiating position for the Central and Eastern European Countries and Cyprus: Outline of European Conference: Pre-Accession Strategy—Presidency Progress report.

  Switzerland.

  Transatlantic Relations: Report in EU-US Ministerial.

  EU-Japan Summit: Presidency Report.

  Trade issues: China—Silk Agreement: Mongolia—Textile Agreement (possible A point): Russia—Textiles: Vietnam—Textiles Agreement (possible A point): Financial Services.

  CFSP: Former Yugoslavia—Albania—Great Lakes—TurkeyCyprus (developments post-Luxembourg)—Middle East Peace Process—Overseas Countries and Territories.

  Third Country meetings in margins: Albania: Russia Co-operation Council.

  29–30 January: Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  No formal Agenda.

  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  European Calender: January—June 1998

  Venue

  Event

  January 1998

  1

  —

  UK Presidency commences

  8

  London

  Visit of College of Commissioners

  12–16

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  29–30

  Birmingham

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  February 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  9–11

  Costa Rica

  EU/San José Group

  11–12

  Brussels

  Select Committee on Trade and Industry Visit

  12

  Brussels

  Research Council

  12–13

  Panama

  EU/Rio Group

  12–13

  London

  Political Committee

  13–15

  Cambridge

  Internal market (Informal)

  16

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  16–20

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  23–24

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  Telecom Council

  271

  European Calender: January—June 1998

  Venue

  Event

  March 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  9

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council (t.b.c.)

  9–10

  Manchester

  UK Presidency Conference

  9–13

  Strasbourg

  European Parliamentary Plenary

  12–13

  London

  Joint Social and Education (Informal)

  14–15

  Edinburgh

  Foreign Ministers' Informal

  15–17

  Manchester

  Seminar for Cultural Ministers

  16–17

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  19

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  20–22

  York

  ECOFIN Informal

  23

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  24

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  30

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  30–31

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  30–31

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  31–1 April

  Moscow

  G8 Energy Ministerial

  April 1998

  1–3

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  2–4

  London

  ASEM II

  6

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  16

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  21

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  24–26

  Chester

  Environment and Transport (Informal)

  27–28

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  European Parliament

  30

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  May 1998

  1–3

  Brussels

  Ecofin and Special EMU Council

  5

  Brussels

  Political Committee (t.b.c.)

  7

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  10–12

  Newcastle

  Agriculture (Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  11

  Brussels

  Euro-Med Energy Ministerial

  12

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  18

  Brussels

  Development Council

  18

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  19

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  June 1998

  2

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  4

  Luxembourg

  Education and Social Affairs Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  15–16

  Cardiff

  European Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Joint Environment and Transport Council

  18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  272

  European Calender: January—June 1998

  Venue

  Event

  22

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (t.b.c.)

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22924]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I travelled to Coventry by train on Friday 11 July 1997 to attend a half day seminar on the Strategic Defence Review.

  India
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the authorities in India about the position of Peter Bleach, facing a charge subject to the death penalty; and if he will make a statement. [23211]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Foreign Office Ministers have discussed Mr. Bleach's position with the Indian authorities on four occasions in the past year. We are doing all we properly can for Mr. Bleach. His trial will begin on 27 January; the case remains sub judice.

  Mrs. Regan
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the proposed overseas visits to be undertaken by Mrs. Regan; [23132]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the duties and the role of Mrs. Regan in the forthcoming visits of the Foreign Secretary to (a) the United States and (b) other overseas locations. [23131]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Ms Regan does not currently propose to undertake any overseas visit.

DEFENCE

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value to Britain of arms sales(a) to Indonesia and (b) to Turkey in each year since 1990. [22810]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimated value of UK defence sales (including services) to Indonesia and Turkey in each year since 1990 is as follows:

  £ million

  Indonesia

  Turkey

  1990

  3

  63

  1991

  34

  32

  1992

  15

  36

  1993

  457

  6

  1994

  77

  68

  1995

  95

  19

  1996

  443

  107

  1997

  18

  2

  273
  It should be noted that the figures quoted are based on voluntary returns from industry and are expressed in current prices and relate to new contracts signed rather than financial receipts or actual deliveries.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the rolling programme of improvements relating to environmental remedial action in connection with Menwith Hill, referred to in the answer of 10 June 1996,Official Report, column 46, has now been completed; and what recent environmental assessment of Menwith Hill Station has been carried out. [21416]

  Mr. Spellar
  The programme of improvements at RAF Menwith Hill reflecting the recommendations contained in previous environmental surveys is due to be completed in the first half of 1998. The most recent environmental assessment was carried out in 1996.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Health and Safety Executive last visited RAF Menwith Hill; and what was the outcome of that visit. [21418]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Health and Safety Executive last visited the site in June 1996 following allegations that equipment at the site caused cancer. It concurred with North Yorkshire Health Authority's findings that the incidence of cancer within the area was no higher than the national average.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has full access to US environmental compliance status surveys in respect of RAF Menwith Hill; and when the last such survey was carried out. [21419]

  Mr. Spellar
  MoD personnel are fully involved in the environmental audit processes at all USVF facilities in the United Kingdom and are routinely made aware of the contents of Environmental Compliance Status Surveys. The last such survey at RAF Menwith Hill was conducted in 1994.

  Nuclear Bunkers
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on expenditure on the maintenance and building of nuclear bunkers in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 year; [22919]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the use of nuclear bunkers sold by the Government; [22920]

  (3) how many nuclear bunkers in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom were maintained by Her Majesty's Government in each of the past 10 years; [22917]

  (4) what use Her Majesty's Government currently make of nuclear bunkers; [22921]

  (5) how many nuclear bunkers were located on (a) Government owned land and (b) his Department's land in each of the last 10 years. [22918]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Animal Centre
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the agency review of the Defence Animal Centre. [23788]

  Dr. Reid
  A review of the agency status of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) has begun. The performance of the DAC has been evaluated and its activities will shortly be subjected to the normal "prior options" tests.

  Comments and contributions form those with an interest in the work of the Agency would be welcome and should be sent by 31 January 1998 to Major General W. R. Short, Director General Army Medical Services (DGAMS), Building 21, Keogh Barracks, Ash Vale, Aldershot, Hampshire GU12 SRR.

  Prospective contributors to the Agency Review should note that the DAC is proceeding with a PH project to rebuild its accommodation and provide associated support services.

  Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the future for the CI30J in the RAF's transport fleet; and if he will make a statement. [23127]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 11.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him and (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23260]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There has been one such visit. Details are as follows:

  Date

  Event

  Minister accompanied by spouse

  Total cost

  22–23 November 1997

  80th Anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai

  Minister for the Armed Forces

  £3,839.74

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23252]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was accompanied by Lady Irvine at the 14th Conference of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers, held in Trinidad and Tobago on
  275
  4–11 January 1998. The total cost of the trip from public funds for the Lord Chancellor, Lady Irvine and an official was £13,487.74.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date(a) he and (b) the Lord Chancellor last used a train in the course of their official duties. [22929]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) I have not used a train for official duties since my appointment. (b) The Lord Chancellor last used a train in the course of his official duties on 11 December 1997.

  Queen's Counsel (Applications)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications there were for silk in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; and how many were successful. [21855]

  Mr. Hoon
  In 1995, 488 practitioners applied for silk, of whom 66 were awarded silk in 1996. In 1996, 500 practitioners applied, of whom 68 were awarded silk in 1997.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many visits he has made to legal aid practices in England and Wales since his appointment. [21856]

  Mr. Hoon
  Between 1 May 1997 and 15 January 1998, I have visited nine legal aid practices.

  Judges (Education and Training)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which judges are responsible for education and training in each of the circuits. [21854]

  Mr. Hoon
  Training on circuits is organised by Presiding Judges and Family Division Liaison Judges with the assistance of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB). It is mainly delivered through supervising and tutor district judges in the case of deputy district judges and pupil master judges in the case of assistance recorders.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of 15 and 16-year-olds on remand who will be held in prison service accommodation over(a) the next five years and (b) the next 10 years. [22700]

  Ms Quin
  No projection is made of the numbers of 15 and 16-year-old remand prisoners in the years ahead. However, the Government would expect that their policies to reform the youth justice system will have a positive effect in reducing these numbers.

  Coroners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to simplify responsibility for the Coroner Service and assess the advantages of establishing a Coroner Agency for this purpose; and if he will make a statement. [23181]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The coroner service is a locally provided service. We have no plans to reduce local authority responsibilities or to create a new agency.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) coroners, (b) deputy coroners and (c) assistant deputy coroners there are; and how many in each group are (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) women and (iv) from ethnic minority communities; [23103]

  (2) how many coroners have (a) previous judicial experience and (b) medical experience. [23104]

  Mr. George Howarth
  According to the latest available information, there are some 146 coroners and a similar number of deputy coroners. Most coroners also have one assistant deputy coroner. Twenty-six coroners are full-time appointments; all the rest are part-time. Twenty-seven of all appointments are women. No information is held centrally on the number of appointments from within the ethnic minority communities.

  Under the Coroners Act 1988, all coroners must have relevant legal or medical qualifications, but information on the extent of judicial or medical experience is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his functions in relation to the Coroners Service; how many civil servants in his Department have specific responsibility for it; and what other functions those civil servants have responsibility for. [23002]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Secretary's statutory functions include the approval of coroner appointments in London and the metropolitan areas, changes to coroner districts, the setting of certain fees and determination of applications to hold an inquest in the absence of a body. There is also power to collect statistics and to arbitrate on disputes between coroners regarding jurisdiction, or between coroners and their local authorities in respect of their remuneration and pensions. The Home Office is responsible for coroner legislation, deals with correspondence and inquiries from the public and supports study and training events.

  The work is undertaken by seven officials who also have responsibilities for burial, cremation, exhumation and other matters.

  Lunar House Staff
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 296, what were the costs in the last year for which figures are available of running Lunar House, Croydon, specifying staff costs separately. [22080]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 14 January 1998]: The non staff costs of running Lunar House in 1996–97 were £5.8 million. This included £3.4 million rent,

  277
  £1.1 million (Contribution in Lieu of Rates), £650,000 maintenance and building works, £250,000 cleaning and £330,000 fuel and utilities. In addition, the security guarding of Lunar House cost £600,000 and the staff responsible for running the building cost £380,000, although they were also responsible for a wider range of building and office services.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he proposes to appoint as successor to Professor Margaret Brazier OBE as Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee. [23789]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am pleased to be able to announce that the Reverend Professor Michael Banner has been appointed as the new Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee. His period of office will begin on 1 February 1998.

  Professor Banner was Chairman of the Committee which considered the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals, and is the F. D. Maurice Professor of Moral and Social Theology at King's College, London.

  Immigration
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the entry requirements for holders of travel documents issued by the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. [23790]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Immigration Rules, holders of travel documents which are not issued by a recognised national authority are required to obtain a visa if they wish to come to the United Kingdom. Despite this, while not recognising the authorities of the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (TRNC) we have in the past accepted TRNC travel documents as proof of identity. This has meant that holders of TRNC documents were up till now not required to obtain a visa if visiting the United Kingdom for a short period. This operated under a concession.

  We are today bringing the arrangements concerning holders of these documents into line with our standard practice by withdrawing this concession. There have been significant numbers of asylum claims by passengers travelling with this document which, when determined, have all been unfounded. With effect from midnight tonight, holders of documents issued by the authorities of the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" will be required to obtain visas to the United Kingdom, regardless of the purpose of their journey.

  We have also today laid an amendment to the Immigration (Transit Visa) Order 1993, requiring holders of such documents to obtain a visa when in transit through the United Kingdom. This requirement will apply from 5 February.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been injured as a consequence of(a) using and (b) being exposed to CS gas. [21417]
  278
  Mr. Michael
  This information is not held centrally. During police trials of CS spray, between 1 March and 31 August 1996, it was found that 78 per cent. (588) of officers who sprayed CS suffered some cross-contamination effects, such as a burning sensation to the skin or pain to the eyes. The report of the evaluation of the trials, which was published by the Home Office Police Research Group in December 1996, noted that, in some cases, officers appeared to have reported their experience of CS cross-contamination as minor injury. The officers who took part in the trials generally felt that the disadvantages of cross-contamination were outweighed by the advantages of CS spray as an item of defensive equipment.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22925]

  Mr. Straw
  On Tuesday 6 January 1998, when I travelled by the 7.45 am train from London Euston to Wolverhampton in order to visit Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Brinsford, the West Midlands Probation Service and the West Midlands Fire Service.

  Firearms Compensation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average length of time taken for firearms compensation under options A and B; and what is the expected time for claims submitted now under(a) options A and B and (b) option C. [23583]

  Mr. Michael
  As at 1 January 1998, the average length of time to process claims under Options A and B was 19 weeks. Regular processing of Option C claims is expected to begin later this month.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Programmes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the cost of commissioning additional drug treatment and testing programmes as provisionally estimated in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] to fall upon the Probation Service. [23126]

  Mr. George Howarth
  During the pilot stage of the new order, the relevant probation service(s) will be directly funded by the Home Office to Purchase drug treatment and testing services. Funding arrangements for the period of national implementation will be decided on in the light of experience in the pilot stage.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local pilot projects for drug treatment and testing orders he intends to undertake; and how long he expects them to last. [23122]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The drug treatment and testing order will be piloted before national implementation, but a final decision on the length and number of the pilots has yet to be taken.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide an analysis of his estimate of the cost of the local pilot projects for the Drug Treatment and Testing Order. [23120]
  279
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office will provide direct funding of £1 million for the pilot project(s), which will include the cost of evaluation. It has been broadly estimated that the average cost per order could be around £6,400, but the validity of this estimate will of course be tested during the pilot phase.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects drug treatment and testing orders to be available as sentences for courts throughout England and Wales. [23119]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No firm date has yet been set, but I would expect it to fall in the financial year 2000/2001.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives Her Majesty's Government propose to put forward to address the problem of illegal drugs during the UK presidency of the European Union. [23117]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The United Kingdom Presidency will continue to give priority to action against drug trafficking and drugs misuse, in particular by building on the wide range of work already under-way across the three Pillars of the European Union. Our main objectives are to progress further implementation of the European Union strategy against drugs, with a focus on practical action; to begin consideration of a post-1999 European Union drugs strategy; to ensure effective European Union co-ordination for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, being held in New York in June; and to promote effective implementation of the European Union/Caribbean and European Union/Central Asia drugs initiatives. This will include taking forward implementation of the Joint Action on the approximation of drugs laws and practices and continuing work on practical measures to tackle drug trafficking from Latin America and heroin trafficking along the Balkan route.

  Firearms Controls
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State of the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of 22 November 1997 from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, when and in what respects, he proposes to consider extension of firearms controls. [23114]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have undertaken, once the complete ban on all handguns is in place, to take a wider look at the effectiveness of all firearms controls. No specific timescale has been set. The Government have an open mind on the question of further controls and have no preconceived ideas of any specific category of firearms. We propose to consult widely with all interested parties if further steps are considered necessary.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to the policy governing the use of imprisonment for asylum seekers. [21296]
  280
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  People are not detained merely because they have sought asylum. However, it is sometimes necessary to detain a small proportion of those liable to detention under powers conferred by the Immigration Act, some of whom may at some stage also have sought asylum in the United Kingdom, because it is felt that they might otherwise abscond.

  The use of prisons for immigration detainees is one of the areas included in the review of detention policy which is under consideration. We expect to make the results available in the near future.

  Prison Visits
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons(a) he and (b) the Minister with responsibility for prisons visited in the course of the Christmas adjournment. [21297]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend visited Brinsford and Grendon prisons on 6 January. I visited Castington and Acklington prisons on 2 January.

  Prison Site (Heysham)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the use of a former holiday camp at Heysham as a future prison. [21299]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service is interested in developing the site at Middleton Tower, Heysham for use as a temporary prison for lower security, Category C prisoners. However, the outcome of the appeal against the refusal of planning clearance for a temporary prison on the site will not be known until February 1998.

  Prison Officers Association
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to the powers of the Prison Officers Association. [21301]

  Ms Quin
  We have no plans to change the powers of the Prison Officers Association (POA). However, we have regular meetings with representatives of the Association at which a variety of issues including the powers and responsibilities of the Prison Officer Association are discussed.

  High Intensity Training Regimes
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the High Intensity Training regimes at Colchester and Thorn Cross Young Offenders Institutions. [21302]

  Ms Quin
  In response to a Question from the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on 9 June 1997,Official Report, column 786, my hon. Friend reiterated the Government's commitment to find out what works with offenders. We decided to run the Colchester experiment for a year, as had originally been planned. We are currently considering the contribution it can continue to make to the "what works" debate. The High Intensity Training regime at Thorn Cross, established separately from Colchester, will continue to operate.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he visited or plans to visit(a) Thorn Cross Young Offenders Institution and (b) Colchester Young Offenders Institution. [21303]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to visit either Thorn Cross or Colchester Young Offender Institutions. As part of our delegated responsibilities. I visited Colchester on 2 July and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) visited Thorn Cross on 6 November. I will be visiting Thorn Cross on Tuesday 20 January.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Young Offender Institutions he has visited since 1 May. [21304]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend visited Brinsford Young Offenders Institution on 6 January. As part of our delegated responsibilities, I have visited four Young Offenders Institutions and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has visited five.

  Prisons (Visitor Searches)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to the guidance governing searching of visitors to Her Majesty's Prisons. [21306]

  Ms Quin
  There are no current plans to issue guidance on the searching of visitors. However, it is possible that the Prison Service's review of searching, which will touch on the searching of visitors, may recommend some further changes. The review is due to be completed by the end of January.

  Prisons (Drug Use)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives have been introduced since 1 May to combat the use of drugs in Her Majesty's Prisons. [21262]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service is currently developing plans to fulfil this Government's commitment to provide access to voluntary testing for all prisoners. This work is being taken forward as part of a review of the Prison Service Drug Strategy which Ministers have commissioned.

  Prisoners (In-cell Television)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 October 1997,Official Report, column 741, what progress has been made in formulating policy with respect to in-cell television for prisoners. [21261]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are still reconsidering policy in this area, and we will make an announcement when we have taken final decisions.

CABINET OFFICE

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will answer questions relating to his role with the Social Exclusion Unit. [23232]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The unit is responsible to the Prime Minister in its work.

  Government Policy (Implementation)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will answer questions relating to the strategic implementation of Government policy. [23233]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I always do my best to answer questions from hon. Members on my responsibilities but will not myself answer questions on policies where other colleagues have lead responsibility.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains and Buses)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when he has used, in the course of his official duties,(a) a train and (b) a bus. [22922]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I use the train regularly in the course of my official duties. I have not used a bus for this purpose.

  Rome Lecture
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will place in the Library a copy of his lecture delivered at the Institute of International Affairs in Rome in October 1997. [22913]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have today placed a copy of the lecture in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what specific aspects of the Millennium Experience will directly relate to Norfolk. [23049]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I expect the content of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich to appeal to, and be relevant to, people of all ages and interests from all over the UK, including Norfolk. The Experience will be divided into different zones looking at who we are, what we do, and where we live, in a way that will engage, inspire, and educate all visitors.

  In addition, there will be a national programme associated with the Experience. This has the same overarching theme of "Time to make a Difference" and will encourage participation by individuals from all areas of the country. The New Millennium Experience Company is currently in the process of setting up teams in the nine regions of England (Norfolk is included in the Eastern region) and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Further details of the national programme will be announced in due course.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22933]

  Dr. David Clark
  I last used a train for official duties on 7 January 1998.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23259]

  Dr. David Clark
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have been accompanied solely by departmental officials on the overseas visits which we have undertaken. The provisions of paragraph 83 of the Ministerial Code therefore do not apply.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by make, engine size and fuel consumption the official cars made available to those holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister since 1994. [22946]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Norman Baker, dated January 1998:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking for a list by make, engine size, and fuel consumption, of official cars made available to those holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister since 1994. I am responding as the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) which is responsible for the operation of the Government Car Service (GCS).
  Since 1994 GCS has provided one car, a Jaguar Sovereign, to the Right Honourable John Prescott MP. The engine size of the car is 4.0 litres, and has an official combined fuel consumption figure of 26.8 miles per gallon.
  Under the last administration, GCS did not provide the Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Michael Heseltine MP, with a car or driver. However, he used a car, together with driver, on cost terms to the public service fully equivalent to the usual ministerial transport arrangements provided by GCS, which were at the time of the agreement £43,628 per annum excluding VAT.
  The full terms of that arrangement were set out in a letter dated 16 March 1995, agreed when Mr. Heseltine was President of the Board of Trade, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Department of Education has to end the GCSE provision in colleges of further and higher education. [21378]
  284
  Mr. Worthington
  There are no plans to end GCSE provision in further education colleges.

  Animal Health Computer System
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been(a) the annual cost since its introduction of the Animal Health Computer System in Northern Ireland and (b) the approximate cost per movement in the latest financial year. [21761]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  (a) the annual cost of the system since its introduction in 1988–89 is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  133,871

  1989–90

  368,156

  1990–91

  477,797

  1991–92

  522,856

  1992–93

  540,295

  1993–94

  560,559

  1994–95

  556,142

  1995–96

  568,814

  1996–97

  565,187

  The figures comprise staff costs of the central computer unit, the maintenance of the system by external contractors and the rental of data circuits.

  (b) the approximate cost per movement in the latest financial year (1996–97) is £0.32 based on 1,750,000 movements at a cost of £565,187.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the savings to the Veterinary Service of the Department of Agriculture by the introduction of the Animal Health Computer System. [21762]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Net Present Value of the investment in the Animal Health Computer System is estimated at £7 million in 1997–98. The on-going savings are currently estimated at £7 million in 1997–98. The on-going savings are currently estimated at £2.7 million per annum. These savings include significant notional elements in that the increased efficiencies arising from the computer facility enabled the Department to redeploy a number of typing, clerical and field staff to other activities.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the(a) capital cost and (b) annual cost of the Animal and Public Health Information System and the approximate cost per livestock movement. [21763]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  (a) the capital cost of the Animal and Public Health Information System (APHIS) is estimated at £2.25 million.

  (b) the estimated annual cost of APHIS is as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  473,000

  1999–2000

  537,000

  2000–01

  577,000

  2001–02

  458,000

  2002–03

  462,000

  2003–04

  465,000

  285
  The figures comprise staff costs of the central computer unit, the maintenance of the system by external contractors and the rental of data circuits.

  (c) the approximate cost per movement based upon 1,750,000 movements is estimated at around £0.30.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to introduce charges to farmers, auctioneers or abattoirs for the Animal and Public Health Information System; and what the scale of those charges will be. [21764]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The question of charging will be considered later this year in parallel with the introduction of the Animal and Public Health Information System.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she will take to ensure that persons she appoints to public bodies reflect the various communities, political parties and religious denominations in Northern Ireland; to how many such bodies she makes appointments; and what is the statutory basis which requires her to ensure that her appointments reflect different groups and bodies. [22218]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  All the Northern Ireland Departments, including the Northern Ireland Office, fully endorse the Guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Sir Leonard Peach, that all public appointments should be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, and on the basis of merit, to ensure that their bodies, as far as possible, reflect the composition of the population of Northern Ireland. There are 148 bodies featured in the cabinet office publication "Public Bodies 1997" to which the Departments make appointments. None of the bodies have a statutory base which requires appointments to reflect various communities, political party and religious denominations.

HEALTH

  Lariam
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is currently supporting into the possible side effects of the use of Lariam; and if he will make a statement. [18270]

  Ms Jowell
  None. The recommendations of the Malaria Advisory Committee on the prevention of malaria for United Kingdom travellers were published by the Public Health Laboratory Service in the Communicable Disease Report on 19 September. Copies are available in the Library.

  As for all marketed medicines, the available research into the side effects of melfloquine was assessed at the time of granting the Marketing Authorisation and continues to be evaluated by the Medicines Control Agency whenever new information emerges. Recognised side effects for mefloquine are included in the authorised product information and the British National Formulary. The current produce information for doctors and patients for Lariam is consistent with the newly published
  286
  guidelines and the product information advises doctors to refer to these, for current advice on geographical resistance patterns and appropriate chemoprophylaxis.

  In-patients
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average length of in-patient stay in each hospital trust in each of the last five years; how many patients treated as in-patients were re-admitted to each hospital trust within six months; and what proportion of the total number of patients so treated this represents. [19802]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on average length of stay for each National Health Service trust for the years 1991–92 to 1995–96 has been placed in the Library. Information on six-month readmission rates for individual trusts is not collected centrally, but my noble Friend, the Baroness Jay, will write to my hon. Friend with the information that is available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on free dental check-ups within the NHS. [22564]

  Mr. Milburn
  Dental charges are being examined as part of the comprehensive spending review, which is looking at all aspects of the Department's spending in the context of the Government's election manifesto commitment"if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your general practitioner happens to be or on where you live".

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the dental profession to discuss improvements in the dental services within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [22562]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are frequent meetings to discuss different aspects of dentistry between Departmental Ministers or officials and the representatives of the dental profession. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the General Dental Council on 24 November, and I met representatives of the General Dental Services Committee from the British Dental Association on 19 November 1997.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has formally responded to the Mental Health Act Commission's seventh biennial report. [23784]

  Mr. Boateng
  Yes. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22935]

  Mr. Dobson
  Today.

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of staffed acute beds at the Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust(a) at the latest available date, (b) proposed under the public sector route, as set out in the outline business case and (c) under the PFI proposals. [23128]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 18 December 1997,Official Report, column 330.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him or her (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23254]

  Ms Jowell
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances it is permissible to offer as food, beef products which are derived from animals which are over 30 months of age; and if he will make a statement. [20312]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) Regulations 1996 permit meat and any products derived from bovine animals which are over 30 months to be offered as food under the following circumstances.

  Firstly, meat derived from a bovine animal which was born, reared and slaughtered in any of the countries specified in the Schedule to the Regulations i.e.,

  Argentina

  Australia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Paraguay

  Poland

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Uruguay

  United States of America

  Zimbabwe.

  Secondly, meat derived from a bovine animal which was accompanied at the time of slaughter by a slaughter certificate issued under the Beef Assurance Scheme, slaughtered in accordance with the hygiene requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 and processed in accordance with the Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994.
  288
  These exemptions from the over thirty months rule are under continual review.

  BSE
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the quantities of incinerated waste arising from the burning of cattle suspected of having BSE; at what sites this waste is located; and what are his Department's plans for final disposal of this waste. [20761]

  Mr. Rooker
  A typical BSE suspect carcase of about 480kg produces about 33kg of ash following incineration. Since records began in 1988, 189,812 carcases have been incinerated in Great Britain by MAFF Veterinary Investigation Centres and by commercial companies contracted by the Department, resulting in an estimated 6,264 tonnes of ash. It is normal practice for this ash to be landfilled in appropriately licensed sites. Records of these sites are not kept centrally within the Department. The policing and monitoring of such sites is the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the studies undertaken or commissioned by the Government into genetically modified foods listing the organisations involved. [22189]

  Mr. Rooker
  A list of current and recently completed studies on genetically modified foods is given in the table.

  Study

  Organisation

  Tagging genetically engineered organisms

  IFR, Norwich Laboratory

  Development of new methods for safety evaluation of transgenic crops

  BIBRA Toxicology International

  Honey from genetically modified plants: integrity of pollen DNA, and expression of promoters in floral organs

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Genetically modified organisms in food-evaluation of in vitro and in vivo models for assessing DNA transfer in guts

  BIBRA Toxicology International

  Detection of genetically modified organisms in foods

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  A model system for the quantitative analysis of horizontal spread of DNA from genetically engineered microorganisms GIT

  IFR, Norwich Laboratory

  Potential for gene transfer between manipulated bacteria and the resident microflora of the human gut

  Rowett Research Institute

  A model system for the quantitative analysis of horizontal spread of DNA from genetically engineered microorganisms

  Surrey University

  Regulation and targeting of transgene expression in fruit crops

  HRI, East Mailing

  Causes of instability of transgenic plants

  John Innes Centre

  Safety of recombinant DNA technology: gene location, marker elimination and secondary effect

  IFR, Norwich Laboratory

  Compilation of a database of oil compositions from new varieties of oilseeds

  Leatherhead Food Research Association

  A database of novel foods and food products cleared in countries other than the UK

  AEA Technology, Consultancy Services

  Genes that have been introduced by genetic modification into crop plants intended for food use

  AEA Technology, Consultancy Services

  Persistence and potential infectivity of live bacteria in foods

  IFR, Norwich Laboratory

  289

  Study

  Organisation

  Development of a strategy to promote the public's understanding of biotechnology

  Sheffield University

  The effect of agriculturally-relevant environmental factors on the expression and stability of genes affecting wheat lipases

  University College Wales, Cardiff

  Survival of DNA in the gut and the potential for genetic transformation of resident bacteria

  Rowett Research Institute

  Evaluating the risks associated with using GMOs in human foods

  Newcastle University

  Impact of transformation methods, construct and gene cassette architecture on the stability and expression of transgenes

  John Innes Centre

  Assessment of the risks of transferring antibiotic resistance determinants from transgenic plant to micro-organisms

  Leeds University

  Dissemination of GM DNA and antibiotic resistance genes via rumen microorganisms

  Rowett Research Institute

  Risk of gene transfer from genetically modified crop plants to gut bacteria

  IFR, Norwich Laboratory

  Gene expression in anthers and nectaries of transgenic plants

  Leicester University

  The stability of expression and inheritance of transgenes in brassica

  John Innes Centre

  Risk assessment of genetically engineered avian probiotics

  Newcastle University

  Possibility of Agrobacterium as a vehicle for gene escape

  Mylnefield Research Services Ltd.

  Do protein sequences imply inter-species gene transfer?

  Manchester University

  The effect of background genotype on transgenes

  John Innes Centre

  Investigation of novel viruses created by growing viral coat protein transgenic sugar beet plants

  Central Science Laboratory/IACR, Brooms Barn

  Mobile genetic elements and lateral gene transfer events in crop species

  Manchester University

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations his Department has undertaken into spongiform type symptoms in dogs held in(a) kennels and (b) quarantine. [22727]

  Mr. Rooker
  Brains from culled hounds in packs throughout Great Britain, which are traditionally fed fallen livestock and so may be considered a high risk population exposed to tissues potentially infected with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies before controls were introduced in September 1990, have been examined and the results considered by SEAC in August 1994. The results were re-evaluated in June 1995. SEAC concluded that the results were inconclusive because there were certain limitations in the protocol of the study. However, it was recognised that the study established that in the dogs studied there was no evidence of a pathologically overt spongiform encephalopathy. It has to be stressed that the hounds were being culled for a variety of reasons and the vast majority were showing no evidence of suffering from neurological disease.

  The brains of dogs which die in quarantine are routinely examined for the presence of rabies. Depending on the clinical signs presented before death, some may also be examined for evidence of spongiform encephalopathy if the rabies diagnosis is negative. No TSE has been identified by these examinations.
  290
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of SEAC funding was devoted to(a) the BSE/CJD link, (b) the BSE/ organophosphate link and (c) evidence relating to the incidence of spongiform diseases in humans before the BSE outbreak in the last year for which figures are available. [22726]

  Mr. Rooker
  SEAC funding covers the cost of arranging meetings, members' fees and their travel costs. It is not broken down by subject.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which pesticides he has withdrawn clearance for use since 1 May; and from which specific permitted uses of pesticides he has withdrawn clearance for use since 1 May. [22945]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1 May 1997, the approvals for all of the uses of 218 pesticide products have been revoked. Of these, eight were revoked for safety reasons or for failure to support the pesticide following a review, and no use is now permitted. A further 84 approved pesticides were also revoked for safety reasons or failure to support the pesticide following a review, but use continues to be approved for a further two years as the safest means of disposing stocks already distributed.

  Twenty-seven approved pesticides have been revoked for commercial reasons with no use now permitted. Ninety-nine approved pesticides were revoked for commercial reasons, but where uses continue to be approved for a further two years.

  I have placed a list of all these pesticide products in the Library of the House.

  A number of specific pesticide uses have also been withdrawn since 1 May. Details of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, they are reported in the monthly Pesticides Register published by the Stationary Office.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's preferred option for the disposal of animals culled under the over-30–months scheme. [23167]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Intervention Board Executive Agency (IBEA) has responsibility for the day to day running of the over-thirty-months scheme. After careful consideration, it has concluded that none of the bids received for incineration under its 1997 tender exercise are capable of meeting its requirements of energy recovery, proven technology, early deliverability, high volumes and reasonable costs. IBEA has therefore terminated the restricted stage of the tender so far as the incineration only element is concerned and is actively investigating other options which may be able to meet its requirements. The Government will announce their decision when these investigations are complete.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risks to nearby communities from the incineration of(a) meat and bone meal and (b) carcasses from animals culled under the over-30-months scheme. [23170]
  291
  Mr. Rooker
  In June 1997, the Environment Agency published a number of studies on the risks from BSE to human health via different environmental pathways. In relation to incineration of BSE suspects, the risk calculation showed that the likelihood of the most exposed individual ingesting in one year sufficient material to cause infection to be less than one in 1,000 million. The Agency pointed out that, in reality, the real risk to the general public is way below that of the most exposed individual. The risks of incinerating over-thirty-months Scheme cattle carcases will be lower still. Incinerators burning carcases and meat and bone meal (MBM) will require consents under the Environment Protection Act 1990.

  The risk assessments gave similar results for burning meat and bone meal derived from OTMS carcases in coal fired power stations. All of the risk assessments carried out showed the risks to be very low and negligible compared to other risks in daily life.

  Rendering
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risks to nearby communities from the burning of tallow to power animal rendering processes. [23164]

  Mr. Rooker
  Studies to assess the effectiveness of the rendering processes to inactivate BSE and scrapie infectivity (Taylor et al 1995, Taylor et al 1997) failed to detect any infectivity in tallow. The majority of tallow produced under the Over Thirty Months Scheme is being safely and securely stored pending a final decision being taken on the disposal options. Small amounts of tallow are being burned in some rendering plants to power the rendering process subject to the consent of the local authority.

  Rabies
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1997,Official Report, column 231, what plans he has to ask the Kennedy Committee to assess possible risks from the vertical transmission of rabies virus. [23188]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Group on Quarantine, under the Chairmanship of Professor Kennedy, are already considering this as part of their work.

  Cloning
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, columns 119, if he will implement recommendation 2 of the Banner Committee. [22757]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  The second recommendation of the Banner Committee calls for a new Committee with responsibility for advising on the ethical questions associated with scientific advances in the field of genetics.

  The Human Genetics Advisory Commission already has a remit to advise on the ethical issues arising from advances in human genetics. Additionally, on
  292
  24 November last year, I announced a public consultation on the wider issues arising from developments in the biosciences. The Banner Committee's second recommendation will be considered in this context.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Standards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the value for money of the work of OFSTED in seeking to raise secondary pupils' standards of educational achievement since September 1993; [22849]

  (2) what independent assessment his Department has made of OFSTED's effectiveness in improving the standards of GCSE achievement by 15 year old maintained pupils' nationally between September 1993 and 1997; and by what criteria in terms of pupils' educational achievements and welfare his Department assesses OFSTED's performance. [22854]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 January 1998]: OFSTED continues to play an essential part in the drive to achieve higher standards. Regular inspection of all schools by OFSTED contributes to public accountability and to the improvement of the education service through the comparative data which is then made available. It is not possible to separate the work of OFSTED from the other factors that have contributed to these improvements.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate his Department has made of(a) the total cost, (b) the average total cost per maintained secondary pupil and (c) the average total cost per secondary school of the first four-year cycle of OFSTED secondary school inspections (i) excluding and (ii) including private training costs to inspectors; [22851]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of (a) the total cost, (b) the average total cost per maintained primary pupil and (c) the average total cost per secondary school, of the first three-year cycle of OFSTED primary school inspections (i) excluding and (ii) including private training costs to inspectors; [22852]

  (3) what estimate his Department has made of (a) the total projected cost per annum, (b) the projected average cost per pupil per annum and (c) the average total cost per LEA of OFSTED's inspections, (i) excluding and (ii) including private training costs to inspectors. [22853]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 January 1998]: I am seeking this information from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead, and will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish his latest estimate of the revenue savings he expects to accrue as a result of the abolition of the assisted places scheme in the years(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if he will list the assumptions underlying his estimates. [23172]
  293
  Mr. Byers
  Our latest estimate of savings against the previous Government's published expenditure plans is £22 million in 1998–99 and £61 million in 1999–2000, with £80 million in 2000–01 and £100 million in 2001–02 assuming that the original baseline figure of £180 million for 1999–2000 is rolled forward. The estimates assume falling numbers of assisted place holders over the years in question while continuing the present arrangements for means-testing and fee-setting.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list in respect of each local education authority area in England the number of(a) application forms received by his Department for certificates of eligibility for early years education for the current term, (b) certificates despatched to parents and (c) applications in respect of certificates which have not yet been despatched by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [23269]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Certificates of eligibility are used in only 53 local education authorities, the others having put in place interim early years education plans covering the autumn term 1997 and the spring term 1998. Certificates of eligibility are normally despatched within five working days of receipt of a valid application. On Friday 15 January, I expect the position to be:

  Local education authority

  (a) application forms received

  (b) certificates dispatched

  (c) applications awaiting certificate dispatch

  Barking and Dagenham

  50

  47

  3

  Barnet

  453

  449

  4

  Barnsley

  78

  78

  0

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  349

  346

  3

  Berkshire

  1,852

  1,840

  12

  Brent

  231

  228

  3

  Brighton and Hove

  417

  412

  5

  Bromley

  862

  857

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  1,020

  1,009

  11

  City of London

  3

  3

  0

  Derby

  267

  255

  12

  Derbyshire

  885

  860

  25

  Devon

  2,445

  2,413

  32

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  550

  543

  7

  East Sussex

  1,192

  1,177

  15

  Enfield

  386

  383

  3

  Essex

  4,452

  4,395

  57

  Gateshead

  123

  123

  0

  Harrow

  259

  259

  0

  Havering

  413

  409

  4

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,521

  1,509

  12

  Hillingdon

  143

  140

  3

  Islington

  117

  115

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  122

  121

  1

  Kent

  4,636

  4,582

  54

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  159

  159

  0

  Lambeth

  304

  299

  5

  Leicester

  155

  154

  1

  Leicestershire

  1,868

  1,853

  15

  Luton

  119

  119

  0

  Norfolk

  1,523

  1,502

  21

  North Lincolnshire

  113

  112

  1

  North Yorkshire

  987

  971

  16

  Northumberland

  155

  149

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  1,017

  984

  33

  Oldham

  146

  145

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1,579

  1,564

  15

  Redbridge

  354

  349

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  310

  307

  3

  Rochdale

  128

  128

  0

  Sefton

  242

  240

  2

  294

  Local education authority

  (a) application forms received

  (b) certificates dispatched

  (c) applications awaiting certificate dispatch

  Shropshire

  942

  921

  21

  South Gloucestershire

  662

  650

  12

  Southampton

  391

  385

  6

  Suffolk

  916

  914

  2

  Surrey

  2,704

  2,682

  22

  Trafford

  219

  218

  1

  Waltham Forest

  147

  147

  0

  Wandsworth

  286

  285

  1

  Warwickshire

  936

  927

  9

  West Sussex

  2,013

  2,001

  12

  Westminster

  151

  151

  0

  Wiltshire

  1,270

  1,269

  1

  Totals

  42,622

  42,138

  484

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him or her (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23258]

  Dr. Howells
  Of the overseas trips taken since 1 May 1997, none of the Ministers from the Department for Education and Employment were accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code.

SCOTLAND

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to approve the decision by Dumfries and Galloway Council to externalise all of its residential homes for the elderly. [20616]

  Mr. Galbraith
  If the Secretary of State receives a request to approve the decision, careful consideration will be given to all relevant factors. However, as I indicated to my hon. Friend when we met in August, local authorities are best placed to determine what services are required to respond to the needs and circumstances of their areas.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the exemption of the fishing industry from the Working Time Directive; and if he will make a statement. [20652]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The Scottish Office has received a copy of a paper submitted by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions in response to the EC White Paper on Sectors and Activities excluded from the Working Time Directive; and has been kept fully aware, in discussions, of the fishing industry's position on this matter.
  295
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland what role he will have on fisheries matters during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. [22045]

  Mr. Dewar
  Scottish Office Ministers will play a full part in EU business during the UK Presidency.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what involvement he has had in determining the United Kingdom's priorities in fisheries during the United kingdom presidency of the European Union in the first half of 1998. [22044]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department has been closely involved in preparations for the UK's presidency and in advising Ministers on the determination of the UK's priorities.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at how many meetings of the EU Fisheries Council he has(a) spoken for and (b) been lead Minister on behalf of Her Majesty's Government since 2 May. [22025]

  Mr. Dewar
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for agriculture, environment and fisheries has attended both meetings (30 October and 18–19 December) of the Fisheries Council as a member of the UK Ministerial team.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria determined the appointment of the chairpersons of the three Scottish water authorities. [22042]

  Mr. Dewar
  The new Chairmen of the East and North water authorities, who take up those positions on 1 April 1998, were appointed to the respective authorities in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice. All candidates were firstly assessed against a list of the knowledge, experience and personal qualities desirable for a Board member. In selecting Chairmen from the membership, I then considered the field in the light of the following desirable attributes:

  substantial public or private sector experience, preferably at Chairman level;

  effective ambassadorial skills;

  ability to develop a clear vision of the future of the public utilities;

  proven leadership qualities;

  ability to command respect, inspire and motivate both within the Board and within the organisation as a whole;

  possess knowledge of management practices in the public sector.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a further education funding council to help to decide the allocation of grants to further education colleges. [22269]

  Mr. Wilson
  The establishment of a Further Education Funding Council was one of the recommendations of the Scottish Committee of the National Committee of Inquiry 296
  into Higher Education. There have been extensive consultations on the Committee's recommendations but final decisions have not yet been taken.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22677]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department has 164 secure cycle spaces in buildings where The Scottish Office is the major occupier.

  Nursery Provision
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had with the Scottish Pre-School Play Association to discuss(a) nursery provision and (b) the Nursery Voucher Scheme. [22382]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: There has so far been one Ministerial meeting with the Scottish Pre-School Play Association (SPPA): I met them on 11 July 1997, when we discussed pre-school education generally and the abolition of the pre-school voucher system in particular. I have also met Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich, another voluntary organisation concerned with pre-school education provision.

  There is also regular contact between SPPA and officials. SPPA is part of a standing liaison group between officials and pre-school education providers in all the sectors. It is also a member of the National Child Care Forum, on which The Scottish Office is represented. In addition, SPPA is amongst the organisations which have been invited to respond, by 6 February, to a major consultation paper on the future of pre-school education, which I published last November.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with representatives of private nursery providers to discuss(a) the abolition of the Nursery Voucher Scheme and (b) alternative means of making nursery provision. [22383]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: There has so far been one Ministerial meeting with the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association (SINA): I met them on 24 September 1997 to discuss a wide range of issues, including the abolition of the pre-school voucher system and the way ahead for pre-school education thereafter.

  There is also regular contact between SINA and officials. Together with the Scottish Council for Independent Schools (SCIS), SINA is part of a standing liaison group between officials and pre-school education providers in all the sectors. In addition, SINA and SCIS are amongst the organisations which have been invited to respond, by 6 February, to a major consultation paper on the future of pre-school education, which I published last November.

  Owner-occupiers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the number of owner-occupiers within Scotland as a percentage of the overall housing stock. [22395]
  297
  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Information about the number of owner occupied dwellings in Scotland is collected as part of the decennial Population Census. For intervening years the Scottish Office estimates the number of owner occupied dwellings on the basis of information from local authorities and Scottish Homes. The figures for each year from 1979 to 1996 are set out below.

  Year

  Owner occupied dwellings in Scotland as a percentage of the total housing stock

  1979

  35.3

  1980

  36.1

  1981

  136.4

  1982

  37.7

  1983

  39.1

  1984

  40.5

  1985

  41.8

  1986

  43.1

  1987

  44.6

  1988

  46.7

  1989

  49.1

  1990

  51.2

  1991

  152.4

  1992

  54.1

  1993

  55.5

  1994

  56.9

  1995

  58.4

  1996

  59.2

  1 Census figures. Remaining figures are estimates.

  Expenditure Statistics
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, in(a) cash terms and (b)1997–98 prices, the amount of money allocated in each financial year since 1978–79 and 1997–98 to each area of expenditure currently within his responsibility. [22417]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Fully consistent information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Relevant information can be found in the following publications:

  Public Expenditure to 1985–86—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Public Expenditure to 1986–87—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Public Expenditure to 1987–88—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Public Expenditure to 1988–89—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Public Expenditure to 1989–90—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Public Expenditure to 1990–91—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Public Expenditure to 1991–92—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Public Expenditure to 1992–93—A Commentary on the Scotland Programme

  Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94 (Cm 1515)

  Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1992–93 to 1994–95 (Cm 1915)

  Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96 (Cm 2214)

  Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97 (Cm 2514)

  298

  Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2814)

  Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99 (Cm 3214)

  Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1997–98 to 1999–2000 (Cm 3614).

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to avert a shortage of hospital beds during the winter of 1997–98. [22747]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government have provided an additional £25 million to the NHS in Scotland to deal with the expected increase in emergency admissions over the winter period. In addition, I have required Health Boards in Scotland to use their share of £10 million saved from reductions in bureaucracy to reduce waiting times and to ensure that effective contingency plans are in place.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22931]

  Mr. Dewar
  On Sunday 11 January 1998.

  Referendum
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the returning officers of the unitary authorities in Scotland, or staff acting on their behalf, contacted the Scottish Office Devolution Unit by phone between 10pm on 11 September 1997 and the conclusion of the count for Scotland, to request guidance on the interpretation of the answers given to the questions in the referendum, where the voters had written yes or no in the ballot paper; and if he will make a statement. [23234]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Chief Counting Officer for Scotland who had responsibility for the count did not receive any requests for further guidance on the adjudication of ballot papers in the period in question.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those unitary authorities in Scotland which, during the course of the referendum count on 11 September changed the basis of interpretation as to whether a ballot paper was to be accepted as valid, or to be declared spoilt; and how many of these changed their interpretation on the specific advice of his Department. [23274]

  Mr. McLeish
  I am not aware that any area changed the basis of its interpretation of the adjudication of ballot papers or changed its interpretation of the guidance issued by the Chief Counting Office for Scotland.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he gave to returning officers in each of the unitary authority areas in Scotland, for the referendum count on 11 September 1997, with regard to deciding whether or not a vote was to be regarded as valid if the voter wrote "No" in the box adjacent to the statement "I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament"; in what circumstances such a vote, in the absence of any other mark made by the voter on the ballot paper, was taken as(a) a "No" vote, (b) a "Yes" vote or (c) spoilt vote; and what additional guidance was given to returning officers during the course of the count on that evening. [23268]
  299
  Mr. McLeish
  The advice given in the guidance issued by the Chief Counting Officer about a ballot paper marked with "No" in the box adjacent to the statement "I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament" was that the ballot paper was to be treated as a "No"vote. No additional guidance was issued by the Chief Counting Officer during the course of the count.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance which he circulated to returning officers in each of the unitary authority areas in Scotland for the counting procedure for the referendum which took place on 11 September 1997, together with a copy of supplementary guidance issued after and clarification guidance faxed to such officers during the course of the count. [23275]

  Mr. McLeish
  Responsibility for the conduct of the count lay with the Chief Counting Officer for Scotland. A copy of his guidance in connection with the count has been placed in the Library. No supplementary guidance was issued.

  Students
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on changes in the student support and tuition fee arrangements for Scottish domiciled students in session 1989–99. [23983]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am publishing today the main rates of loans and maintenance grants payable in 1998–99 to continuing students and new students in full-time higher education. I am also publishing the rates for those postgraduate courses which do not attract students loans, together with the rates for the various supplementary allowances payable to both undergraduate and vocational postgraduate award holders.

  The total support available to undergraduate students in 1998–99 through the main rates of maintenance grant and loan, taken together, will be 3 per cent higher than in 1997–98, thus maintaining its value in real terms. Postgraduate maintenance grants and supplementary allowances will be increased by a similar amount.

  These changes are consistent with those for England and Wales announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Details have been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Environment
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to use fiscal measures to encourage good environmental practice. [21067]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On Budget day in July, we issued a statement of intent on the use of environmental taxes, which said that we will aim to reform the tax system to increase incentives to reduce environmental damage. The Pre-Budget Report outlined specific areas where we are taking this forward as a priority.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet leaders of the Local Government Association to discuss the control total for local government for 1998–99. [21068]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government have already announced for consultation their proposals for the local authority finance settlement for 1998–99. In his statement to the House on 2 December 1997,Official Report, columns 157–64 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions explained that the arrangements would be finalised after a period of consultation with local authorities and others. He also referred to the establishment of a new central-local partnership which will provide an ongoing forum for discussion of all major issues of concern between the government and the Local Government Association.

  PEPs and Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding PEPs. [21069]

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding his proposals for individual savings accounts. [21072]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  PEPs and TESSAs will be superseded from 1999 by the new individual savings account (ISA). We announced our proposals and published a consultative document on the ISA on 2 December. Responses were invited by 31 January. We have received so far, and continue to receive, large numbers of representations on these proposals.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he calculated that there would be an additional six million savers under his proposals in the Green Paper on ISAs. [21089]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 473.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to encourage greater public awareness of the implications of EMU. [21070]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  We have already published booklets to help people and businesses understand what EMU means. This year, we will hold conferences to inform all regions and sectors of the economy about the need to prepare. We will apply for Community funding for an information service and we will produce information packs for schools, and we plan to make all EMU information available on-line through links to libraries and information centres across the country.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from trade unions on his EMU policy. [21077]
  301
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I have regular contact with the Trades Union Congress to discuss a range of issues, including economic and monetary union. I have also received representations from the TUC through the Business Advisory Group, which I set up in September 1997. I will shortly be publishing a report summarising the recommendations from the Advisory Group.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each current statutory duty of the Bank of England, indicating how each is affected by(a) current obligations under Stage 2 of Economic and Monetary Union, (b) future obligations entered into by the United Kingdom after adherence to Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union and (c) the commencement of Stage 3 by other member states, not including the United Kingdom. [22195]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The main existing statutory duties of the Bank of England are prescribed by the Currency and Bank Notes Acts 1928 and 1954 (in relation to notes and coin) and by the Banking Act 1987 as amended (in relation to banking supervision). These duties are unaffected by stage 2 of economic and monetary union and would remain unaffected by the participation in stage 3 of other Member States. The 1928 and 1954 Acts would require amendment were the United Kingdom to participate in stage 3.

  Windfall Tax
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with employers' groups on his policy to spend the proceeds of the windfall tax on a welfare-to-work programme. [21071]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I am pleased to tell the House that we had widespread positive acceptance of the welfare to work programme from employers, employees representatives and the voluntary sector as well. In particular, I am most encouraged by the firm support from British industry and I am pleased also to say many Members of this House have been involved as ambassadors for the programme, and that is having a very good effect.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representation she has received from employers' groups on his policy to spend the proceeds of the windfall tax on a welfare-to-work programme. [21080]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) today.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding his plans for a general provision against tax avoidance. [21073]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Since I asked the Inland Revenue to look at the possibility of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) in my last Budget, a number of representations have been received expressing a variety of views. The Revenue have also held informal discussions with several representative bodies and other groups. Given the informal and exploratory nature of these talks,302
  I do not think it would be right to disclose details at this early stage. There will be formal, public consultation before any General Anti-Avoidance Rule is introduced.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with other Governments regarding measures to tackle tax avoidance. [21084]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Government have had a number of discussions with other Governments about various aspects of tax avoidance.

  Fuel (Value Added Tax)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from pensioner groups on his policy to reduce VAT on fuel. [21074]

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from pensioner groups on his policy to reduce the VAT rate on fuel. [21076]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Our prompt action to bring down the VAT rate on domestic fuel in the Summer Budget has been widely welcomed. The reduction will be of particular benefit to Pensioners as a proportion of their average income.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from trade unions on his policy to reduce the VAT rate on fuel. [21090]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Our prompt action to bring down the VAT rate on domestic fuel in the Summer Budget has been widely welcomed. There have been no specific representations from trade unions.

  Tax Competition
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will meet the Belgian Finance Minister to discuss harmful tax competition. [21075]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such meeting is scheduled, but the Chancellor does of course see all EU Finance Ministers regularly at meetings of the Ecofin Council.

  Hypothecated Taxation
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the effect of hypothecated taxation on service provision. [21078]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government receive a number of representations on both the Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Reviews. A variety of representations on hypothecated taxation have been received.

  Offshore Trusts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his ministerial colleagues receive papers on the development of policy for the taxation of offshore trusts. [21079]
  303
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his ministerial colleagues receive papers on the development of policy for the taxation of offshore trusts. [21085]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Hitchen and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on the 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 576.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the annual cost to the Treasury of tax avoidance through the use of offshore trusts. [21087]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The last Government failed to put in place any comprehensive mechanism accurately to assess or estimate the cost to the Treasury of tax avoidance. The question of assessment is part of the review announced in the Pre-Budget Report.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received recently concerning national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement. [21082]

  Mr. Darling
  My ministerial colleagues and I receive numerous representations regarding national insurance contributions.

  Sterling
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the current level of sterling. [21083]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor has received a number of representations concerning the exchange rate. The Government want a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, consistent with the objective of price stability. The focus of policy will be on achieving the low inflation and sound public finances which are the necessary conditions for sustained exchange rate stability.

  Income Tax (Self-assessment)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to simplify the calculation of income tax for the purposes of self-assessment. [21086]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The self-assessment legislation included a number of measures to simplify the calculation of income tax. These measures were considered in depth by the Self Assessment Consultative Committee which has representatives from all the main organisations representing business and industry bodies and the accountancy and legal professions. The Inland Revenue is listening closely to any practical concerns raised by taxpayers and accountants about self assessment.

  Budget Forecast
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current forecast of the Budget surplus or deficit for 1998–99. [21088]

  Mr. Darling
  Table B1 in Appendix B of the November 1997 Pre-Budget Report gives current forecasts of the budget surplus or deficit on various definitions.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic benefits to the UK from the constitutional position of the Channel Islands in respect of their arrangements for determining their own tax laws. [22240]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom was examined by the Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969–1973. The Government have conducted no specific assessment of the economic benefits to the UK of the constitutional position of the Channel Islands in respect of their arrangements for determining their own tax laws.

  Art Market (VAT)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason an interim VAT band was established for the United Kingdom art market; what effect the VAT raise has had on turnover; and what representations he is making to the Commission on the subject. [22616]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Goods imported into the UK normally bear VAT at the Standard rate (17.5 per cent.). Under the terms of EC law introduced in 1995 certain works of art, antiques and collectors' pieces imported into the UK are eligible until 30 June 1999 for an effective rate of VAT at importation of 2.5 per cent.

  The fine art trade's published overseas trade statistics indicate that, since 1995, there has been a reduction in the annual values of UK imports of works of art, antiques and collectors' pieces from non-EC countries. It is readily acknowledged by representatives of the fine art trade that, in such a highly competitive global market, a variety of factors may have contributed to the apparent decline in imports.

  During 1998, the EC Commission is expected to review the effects of the relevant EC legislation on the competitiveness of the Community art markets compared to third countries' art markets. The relevant Government departments are working closely with art trade bodies to evaluate those effects, and to try to ensure that the position of the UK's fine art market will be properly represented in that review.

  Association for the Monetary Union of Europe
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what finance the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe receives from the European Community. [22617]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: The information requested is not held by the Government. The question should be addressed to Directorate General XIX of the European Commission.

  Valuation Office Agency
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Chief Executive of the Valuation Office Agency resigned in December 1997 and on what terms; whether she was on fully-paid sick leave between January and September 1997; and at what cost. [22812]
  305
  Dawn Primarolo
  The reasons for the previous Chief Executive's resignation and her sick leave record whilst she was employed are confidential information concerning public employment. Mrs. Lowe received £54,000 on her resignation. The normal rules concerning sick leave and pensions in the Civil Service were applied to Mrs. Lowe during her employment.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the estimated saving to public funds in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 of the abolition of tax relief on private health insurance. [22463]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax relief on private medical insurance contracts for individuals aged 60 or over was withdrawn in the July 1997 Budget. The savings in relief are estimated at £25 million in 1997–98 and £120 million in 1998–99.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchquer what revenue the Exchequer received in 1997 from the removal of tax relief on pensions' private medical insurance.
  [22827]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax relief on private medical insurance contracts for individuals aged 60 or over was withdrawn in the July 1997 Budget. The saving in relief is estimated at 25 milion in 1997–98.

  Charities
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation he had with charitable organisations prior to phasing out charities' tax credit compensation; and if he will make a statement. [22461]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The abolition of paid tax credits applies to all non-taxpayers and is part of a wider reform. We did, however, consider the position of charities carefully and so included a special seven year transitional provision for them which has been generally welcomed.

  Oil Terminals
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review arrangements relating to the rebonding of oil terminals in order to encourage seaborne transport of domestic oil supplies. [22761]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. These arrangements have been the subject of discussion with the oil industry for some time but the cost to the Exchequer of returning to rebonding is too expensive. It also has resource costs for Customs. The industry was compensated for debonding by the current duty deferment system, which allows monthly, rather than daily, payment of duty.

  Agriculture (Compensatory Payments)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding compensatory payments to agriculture consequent upon the strength of sterling in relation to other EU currencies. [21062]

  Mr. Darling
  Treasury Ministers have received several such representations. I refer to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made to the House on 22 December, 1997,Official Report, columns 677–79.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him or her (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23249]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  There have been no such visits.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many public appointments she has made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these(a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin; [16785]

  (2) if she will publish the names of all those people whom she has appointed to public bodies since 1 May, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed, and whether they receive remuneration. [19978]

  Mr. Field
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made 35 public appointments since 1 May. Of those:(a) eight appointments (23 per cent.) are remunerated, on a fee paid sessional basis; (b) No appointments are of Afro-Caribbean or Asian Origin.

  The information regarding the names of those people who have been appointed and the position to which they have been appointed is set out in the table.

  Appointee

  Position and public body

  Remuneration (Attendance fee £)

  Brigadier A. K. Dixon

  Member, Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions

  None

  Brigadier W. Shackell CBE

  Member, Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions

  None

  Mr. J. Howes

  Member, Chasely Trust

  None

  Mrs. A. Spaight MA, MSCP

  Member, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  119.00

  Sir P. Large CBE

  Member, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  119.00

  Dr. P. Watson

  Member, Far East (Prisoner of War and Interness) Fund

  None

  Reverend R. Rossiter

  Member, Far East (Prisoner of War Interness) Fund

  None

  Mr. R Grainger

  Member, Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  107.00

  Mr. H. Brown

  Member, Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  157.00

  Mrs. H. Maunsell

  Member, Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  157.00

  Mr. M. Jones

  Member, Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  157.00

  Lady J. Staughton

  Member, Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation

  None

  Professor O. Stevenson CBE

  Member, Social Security Advisory Committee

  122.00

  Mr. R. Wendt

  Member, Social Security Advisory Commitee

  122.00

  Mr. R. Mortimer

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Ms J. Stevens

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Major Roynon-Jones

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Lieutenant Colonel M.

  Member, War Pensions

  None

  307

  Appointee

  Position and public body

  Remuneration (Attendance fee £)

  Deverill

  Committee

  Mr. M. Richards

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. W. Mowat

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. D. Steele

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. J. Clarke

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. D. Hollier

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. W.G. Wenman

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. G. Cook

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. A. Wakely

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. P. A. Pierce

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. R. Barry

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Dr. A. Carvalho

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Captain C. Blackwood

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mrs. P. Seaton

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Lieutenant Colonel A. Drake DL

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. G. Coulson

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mrs. P. Robinson

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  Mr. L. Barber

  Member, War Pensions Committee

  None

  1. The Retail Prices Index (All items) (RPI) and the Average Earnings Index (Whole Economy) as supplied by The Office for National Statistics were used in this calculation.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

  3. The rate of Basic Retirement Pension was increased in the April 1994 uprating by 50 pence for a single pensioner and 70 pence for a couple on account of VAT on fuel. This increase has not been added in to these illustrative figures.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the rate of state pensions for each year since 1980 for(a) a single pensioner and (b) a couple if the increase had been linked to earnings rather than prices. [17365]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: The information requested is in the table.

  Uprating date

  Single pensioner (£)

  Pensioner couple (£)

  November 1980

  27.60

  44.20

  November 1981

  30.90

  49.50

  November 1982

  33.50

  53.65

  November 1983

  36.40

  58.30

  November 1984

  38.25

  61.25

  November 1985

  41.60

  66.60

  July 1986

  43.45

  69.55

  April 1987

  45.90

  73.45

  April 1988

  49.50

  79.20

  April 1989

  53.90

  86.25

  April 1990

  59.15

  94.65

  April 1991

  65.60

  104.95

  April 1992

  70.80

  113.25

  April 1993

  74.25

  118.80

  April 1994

  76.40

  122.25

  308

  Uprating date

  Single pensioner (£)

  Pensioner couple (£)

  April 1995

  79.45

  127.15

  April 1996

  82.55

  132.10

  April 1997

  86.00

  137.65

  April 1998

  89.60

  143.40

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact of Welfare to Work proposals on the number of people claiming invalid care allowance. [20674]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have recently launched the New Deal for people with a disability or long-term illness. Under the New Deal up to £195 million, set aside from the Windfall Tax, will be used to finance a range of options aimed at helping participants, in the most effective way possible, to move into or stay in work, Whilst the programme is primarily aimed at helping people with a disability or long-term illness who want to work, it also aims to help carers to balance their responsibilities with work, or to take up work when their caring responsibilities come to and end.

  One key element of the New Deal will involve funding a number of innovative schemes to test ways of helping people who want to work, and the bidding process for this part of the programme was launched on 9 December. Up to 20 schemes will be selected, and we anticipate that some of the bids will focus on the needs of carers. In addition we also plan to introduce personal advisers, initially on a modest basis, to help people with a disability on long-term illness to overcome barriers to work. Carers receiving invalid care allowance will also be eligible for help from these personal advisers.

  No estimate has been made of the impact of the New Deal on the number of people claiming Invalid Care Allowance.

  Child Care
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the criteria for eligibility for claims under the family credit childcare disregard; and for each of the last three years(a) how many families made claims against the disregard, (b) what was the total expenditure, (c) what were the average and the median claims, (d) how many claims were made for care of children aged (i) under one year, (ii) between one and four years and (iii) of school age, (e) how many families claimed for help with child care costs for more than one child and (f) what was the average proportion of total family expenditure on childcare which was offset by family credit childcare disregard. [21835]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The eligibility criteria for the Family Credit childcare disregard are set out in Regulation 13A of the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987.

  The disregard provides help with certain childcare charges for lone parents working 16 hours or more, couples where both are working 16 hours or more and couples where one partner is working (16 hours or more) and the other is incapacitated. It applies in respect of

  309
  childcare charges of up to £60 per week for children until the September after the child's 1 1 th birthday. The child must be cared for by a registered childminder, nursery/play scheme, out-of-school club, a childcare scheme operating on Crown Property and schools or establishments exempt from registration under section 71 of the Children Act 1989.

  From June 1998 the disregard will be enhanced by increasing the maximum childcare costs allowed to £100 for families who incur childcare costs for two or more children of qualifying age and extending the age limit by one year to the September following the child's 12th birthday.

  All other information requested is set out in the table below.

  Table 1: Family Credit claims for help with childcare

  May 1995

  May 1996

  May 1997

  (a) Number of claims made

  33,200

  38,800

  46,900

  (i) Number disallowed

  10,400

  9,400

  11,200

  (ii) Number with allowable costs

  22,900

  29,500

  35,700

  (b) Total annual expenditure (millions)

  £14.1

  £22.3

  £31.4

  (c) (i) Average cost to claimant of allowable childcare (£pw)

  £30.34

  £34.61

  £36.95

  (ii) Median cost to claimant of allowable childcare (£pw)

  £28.00

  £32.00

  £33.75

  (d) Number of claims allowed for —

  (i) children under one

  1,200

  1,700

  1,800

  (ii) between one and four

  16,900

  20,900

  24,300

  (iii) aged 5–11

  8,200

  12,000

  15,900

  (e) Number of claims allowed for families with costs for more than one child

  3,300

  4,700

  5,900

  (f) Average proportion of child care cost offset by Family Credit Disregard1

  39 per cent. (49 per cent.)

  42 per cent. (54 per cent.)

  46 per cent.

  Sources:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  1 per cent. sample of Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit recipients without Income Support taken at the end of May 1995 and May 1996.

  Notes:

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  The figures in brackets reflect the proportion of allowable childcare costs met through Family Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Figures for May 1997 are not yet available.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women earning above the average income for full-time women workers claimed maternity benefit in 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [23024]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Government aim to ensure that the maternity pay arrangements for working women are modern, fair, easy to understand and administer.
  310
  The latest information available is for 1995–96. In that year the average income for full-time woman workers was £13,423. 58,000 women earning over that figure received some Statutory Maternity Pay in that year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the savings to public funds if maternity pay were restricted to a maximum of(a) £20,000 and (b) £10,000 a claim. [23048]

  Mr. Denham
  The information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available. A reliable estimate could be made only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of statutory maternity pay is received by those earning(a) under £100, (b) £100 to £199, (c) £200 to £299, (d) £300 to £399, (e) £400 to £499, (f) £500 to £599 and (g) £600 per week or more. [23215]

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

  Weekly earnings of those who received statutory maternity pay as a proportion of all statutory maternity pay paid

  Weekly earnings

  Proporation of SMP received during year (per cent.)

  Under £100

  17

  £100 to £199

  28

  £200 to £299

  23

  £300 to £399

  16

  £400 to £499

  7

  £500 to £599

  4

  £600 and over

  5

  Source:

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

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest whole per cent.

  2. Weekly earnings are estimated from the amount of Statutory Maternity Pay during the tax year 1995–96 by the amount of statutory maternity pay received as a proportion of all statutory maternity pay paid. This estimate is based on the SMP being paid for 6 weeks at 90 per cent. of pay and for 12 further weeks at the flat rate of SMP, and the whole period of statutory maternity pay falling in one tax year.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the percentage and total number of those who received weekly sums above(a) £5,000, (b) £7,500, (c) £10,000, (d) £15,000 and (e) £20,000 in maternity benefits for the first six weeks in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [22873]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the average weekly payment in(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 and (d) 1997 for maternity benefits in the first six weeks. [22874]
  311
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Average weekly statutory maternity pay inthe first six weeks to those in receipt of statutory maternity pay during each tax year

  Tax year

  Average weekly SMP payment (£)

  1993–94

  112

  1994–95

  126

  1995–96

  138

  Source:

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

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest whole pound.

  2. Weekly amounts of SMP are estimated from the amount of SMP during the tax year. This estimate is based on the SMP being paid for 6 weeks at 90 per cent. of pay and for 12 further weeks at the flat rate of SMP, and the whole period of SMP falling in one tax year. This may lead to weekly amounts of SMP being underestimated for people whose claim spans two tax years.

  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions his officials have had with the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children; and if he will make a statement. [22846]

  Mr. Denham
  Officials have had informal discussions with representatives of the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children and others with an interest in provision for vaccine damaged people. The Government are committed to considering the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme in detail in the light of long standing concerns about the scheme.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date she last used a train in the course of her official duties. [22934]

  Ms Harman
  On 17 September 1997, when I travelled to Cardiff to address a conference entitled "Welfare to Work and Women in Wales" held by Chwarae Teg and the National Council of One Parent Families.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for disability living allowance were made during 1997; and how many were(a) refused on first application, (b) granted after tribunal and (c) granted after appeal. [23214]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested because Disability Living Allowance statistics do not distinguish between reviews and appeals of first applications and reviews and appeals of existing awards. A claim may be successful on review or appeal for a variety of reasons, for example, because additional information has been received or the claimant's condition has deteriorated. Such information as is available is in the table.312

  Claims for disability allowance during 1997

  Number

  Claims received

  488,253

  Claims refused on first application1

  66,338

  Review decisions2

  374,494

  Reviews that are successful3

  140,245

  Appeal decisions4

  35,696

  Appeals that are successful5

  19,335

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division; figures based on 100 per cent. data.

  Notes:

  1 Figures include claims received before 1997 but decided in 1997.

  2 Includes both reviews of the first applications which were refused and reviews of existing awards.

  3 Includes both successful reviews of first applications which were refused and existing awards where the award was increased.

  4 Includes both decisions about first applications which were refused after review and decisions about existing awards.

  5 Includes both first awards of benefit and existing awards where the award was increased.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to how many claimants of disability living allowance payments are made in respect of children under the age of(a) 18 years and (b) 16 years. [23209]

  Mr. Denham
  On the basis of the latest available information, which relates to November 1997, the numbers are(a) 213,700 and (b) 196,500.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent completed research evaluated by her Department in respect of the take up of income support by pensioners. [23118]

  Mr. Denham
  As part of our commitment to find the best ways of encouraging take-up of Income Support amongst pensioners, we are currently reviewing relevant research and initiatives completed up to this year, or in progress.

  The Department is now commissioning research to identify the most important barriers to pensioners not claiming the Income Support to which they are entitled.

  An estimated one million pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to Income Support, and we will be running a number of pilot schemes from April this year to find the best way to help them to claim their entitlement.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her Department's letter of 16 December in respect of her Department's research into the take up of income support by pensioners, who is carrying out the research, which organisations were invited to tender for it and what are her Department's(a) terms of reference and (b) budget for such research. [23116]

  Mr. Denham
  Research has been commissioned comprising in-depth interviews with pensioners currently claiming and not claiming, but potentially eligible for, Income Support. It will also include focus groups with pensioners and advice agencies. The terms of reference are to explore the reasons for not claiming Income Support and identify possible means of increasing take-up. Exploring the views of those who are already claiming (as well as those who are not) will give an insight into what encourages, as well as discourages, claims for Income Support.
  313
  Research commissioned by the Department is usually competitively tendered. In this case, the sample was drawn from existing data, so only the organisations involved in the original survey—the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR)—were invited to tender. A contract worth £66,000 was awarded to Social and Community Planning Research.

  A quantitative survey of pensioners potentially eligible for, but not claiming, Income Support is currently being negotiated; details are not yet finalised.

  An estimated one million pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to Income Support, and we will be running a number of pilot schemes from April this year to find the best way to help them to claim their entitlement.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the meetings between ministers in her Department and disabled people's organisations to discuss proposals to reform the social security system. [22916]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Although benefits for sickness and disability are included in my Department's Comprehensive Spending Review, no proposals have yet been brought forward. Since the beginning of July 1997, the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department have had 14 seminars and meetings with organisations representing disabled people. A range of issues were discussed in these meetings.

  Date

  Meeting

  22 July 1997

  Meeting with MIND.

  29 July 1997

  Meeting with Deaf/Blind liaison group.

  29 July 1997

  Disability Reception with over 40 oraganisations representing the interests of disabled people.

  30 July 1997

  Seminar hosted by MENCAP, other organisations also in attendance.

  31 July 1997

  Meeting with Carer's National Association.

  22 October 1997

  Seminar hosted by MENCAP, other oraganisations also in attendance.

  23 October 1997

  Meeting with the National Federation of the Blind of the UK.

  29 October 1997

  Seminar hosted by MENCAP, other oraganisation also in attendance.

  10 November 1997

  Seminar with over 40 organisations representing the interests of disabled people.

  26 November 1997

  Meeting with the Disabled Drivers Association.

  26 November 1997

  Meeting with Rights Now!

  9 December 1997

  Meeting with Labour Party Disabled Members Group.

  314

  Date

  Meeting

  17 December 1997

  Joint Department of Social Security and Department for Education and Employment awayday including representatives of six organisations.

  18 December 1997

  Meeting with the All Party Disablement Group.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to table regulations implementing the introduction of cold weather payments; what provisions she intends to make to enable those elderly people using key meters to pay their heating bill; and if she will make a statement. [23210]

  Mr. Denham
  The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payments Regulations were laid before the House on 8 January and will come into force on 16 January.

  Publication of the Regulations followed an announcement on 5 January, which outlined the detail of the scheme. A publicity campaign has now been launched involving media advertising, posters and leaflets in conjunction with Help The Aged, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It is designed to ensure that pensioners are aware of what payments they will receiving, how and when. This information will enable pensioners to heat their homes confident in the knowledge that they will get extra help with their heaviest fuel bill.

  People receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, and where their benefit includes one of the pensioner premiums, will receive a payment of £50. Around 1.5 million payments should be made by the end of January.

  Other eligible pensioners will receive a payment of £20 or £10. Where there is only one eligible person in a household, or the eligible person is of no fixed abode, they will receive £20; otherwise, each person will receive £10. It is estimated that nearly three and a half million payments will be issued for £20 and almost five million for £10.

  Overall, almost ten million payments will be made to over seven million pensioner households this winter, at a cost of around £200 million. The great majority of payments will be made by the end of March.

  Information is not held on the method of payment used for heating costs by eligible pensioners, but the announcement that a payment will be made provides certainty that money is coming. Many of the poorest pensioners receive Income Support, or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, and could receive a Cold Weather Payment should there be a spell of very cold weather in their locality.

  Disability Benefit
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations she has received from housing associations and related bodies about the proposed changes in disability benefit eligibility; what were the terms of such representations; and if she will make a statement. [22875]
  315
  Mr. Denham
  We have sought responses from relevant organisations on the best means to translate our objectives for the long-term funding of supported accommodation into a modem, practical and sustainable funding system. Two hundred and six responses were received including 89 from organisations resenting themselves as housing associations or related bodies. The respondents made a number of different observations, which we are considering.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which she or any other Minister in her Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him or her and (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23264]

  Ms Harman
  No such visits have been made.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Lone Parents: Welfare Benefits
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their decision to cut benefits for single parents arises from a need to stay within spending limits, or from a desire to encourage single parents into work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the changes will apply only to lone parents making new benefit claims. Existing recipients will not be affected. There will be no cash losers. At the moment, lone parents receive higher levels of benefit for their children than couples. The effect of the change means that lone parents making new claims will receive the same rates of benefit for their children as couple families. Lone parents, however, do face additional costs in work because they have to pay for childcare, which is why we are improving the childcare disregard, introducing the national childcare strategy, and reforming the tax and benefits systems.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; I am not quite sure whether I can say that I thank her for that "Answer". Does the noble Baroness understand that it would be easier to debate this subject if we understood exactly why the Government were doing this? If the reason is to encourage people into work, is the noble Baroness aware that the cut in child benefit premium will injure only those who are already in work and that it therefore contradicts the policy? If the reason is to do with the spending limit, does the noble Baroness remember that in the last parliament we used to say that the Conservatives were in office, but not in power? Now that they can fix our spending limits and have no responsibility for them, does it follow that they are in power but not in office?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in terms of welfare reform, this Government are not only in office, but are in power. The publication today of the Welfare Reform Focus Files, together with the Prime Minister's trend-setting speech and the forthcoming Green Paper, will, I am sure, provide the noble Earl with the context to understand our proposals on welfare reform.
The noble Earl's Question referred particularly to child benefit. At the moment, a lone parent in work enjoys £17.10 in child benefit for the first child and £9 thereafter whereas a couple in work receive only £11.05 for their first child and £9 thereafter. That can mean that, income for income, a lone parent with one
1130
child can have a higher income after tax and deductions than a couple with one child. We do not think that that is appropriate.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, has the Minister seen a report in today's Financial Times which suggests that when answering questions in this House two days ago she had escaped the clutches of the Blairite thought police? In the light of that, may I ask her to clarify a point which was not clarified in another place yesterday; namely, that we have a Minister for Welfare Reform who wants less means-testing and a Secretary of State for Social Security who wants more? Given that we are said to be a "spin-free zone", can the Minister resolve that problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when I was newly married my husband said to me that one of the key things to know about people was whether they offered their compliments forehand or backhand. I think that the noble Lord's comment counts as a "backhand". No, I have not read today's Financial Times. However, I can advise the noble Lord that there is consistency across not only the Government's social security team. but across the Government as a whole that what we are seeking to do is to ensure that every pound that is spent by all of us on welfare benefits and the welfare state is appropriately and prudently targeted, and wisely spent. That is what we are seeking to do while ensuring that we begin to remove some of the perverse anomalies which the previous administration built into welfare by which they actively discouraged those who wanted to seek work from doing so, including lone parents and the disabled. We are seeking to ensure that we have a welfare state which encourages people to do what they want to do and which does not put hurdles in their way.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, as the proposed cut is an obvious disincentive, can my noble friend tell us how it fits into the welfare-to-work scheme?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, any lone parent who is currently on income support and who moves into work will take the existing higher rate of child benefit with her into work. Therefore, there is no disincentive.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that very many people will want to offer the Government warm congratulations both on the direction in which they are travelling and on the priorities which they have chosen in this long-overdue reform of the social security system which is clearly failing on every count? So far, so good, but is the Minister also aware of the growing concern that those individual initiatives, in which some of us believe strongly, lack the context of a clear, total and detailed strategy so that we can judge the entire package? When will we get that whole package?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. For all of us to appreciate the context within which the Government propose to renew and reform the welfare state so that it regains the

1131
confidence of those who pay for it and those who use it the Green Paper is required, and we expect it next month.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I strongly support and recognise the need for a policy of welfare reform? Referring specifically to lone parents, the Government are very much in favour of protecting the poor and needy and I agree with them. Can my noble friend tell the House how she proposes to do that for those lone parents who will have a cut in income?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no existing lone parent on benefit will have a cut in income. However, in future new lone parents will receive proportionately the same level of income as workless couples. Having checked it, there is little research to suggest that lone parents have proportionately higher costs than workless couples except when it comes to childcare where they do not have the support of a partner. That is why the Government, in my view appropriately, concentrate their efforts on childcare on the one hand and reform of the Child Support Agency to deliver child maintenance on the other.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her interesting dissertation in response to the noble Earl did not answer, or attempt to answer, the Question on the Order Paper? The reference to what Mr. Blair will do and all that is very interesting, but it does not begin to answer the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did my best to answer the Question. If noble Lords are dissatisfied with my answer they are entirely entitled to do precisely what the noble Lord has done and press me further.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has relied on the argument for equalisation between lone and married parents. Is she aware of the finding of the Rowntree survey Small Fortunes that since the child premium on income support is very far from meeting the total cost of a child it must be subsidised out of the income support to the parents? Is she further aware that one parent on income support carrying the whole burden is twice as heavily burdened as two on income support? Is this not a case where to impose equality between the unequal widens inequality?,
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have read that report along with others which come up with somewhat different findings. The substantive point, with which I suspect the noble Earl agrees, is that lone parents are poorer than workless couples not so much because of the level of benefit but because of the length of time that they spend on income support. Only one workless couple in five is on JSA for three years or more, but one lone parent in two is on income support for three years or more, and they are often on income
1132
support long after their youngest child has gone to school. We know that when a lone parent moves into work, on average, income rises by £50 per week. We believe that to provide opportunities for work is the best way to help them out of the trap of long-term poverty.

British Aerospace Industry
3.16 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to provide financial assistance to the British aerospace industry in order to secure and create high-technology engineering jobs in the United Kingdom.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, certainly. The Government consider the aerospace industry to be very important. So, they have recently awarded launch aid of up to £200 million to Rolls-Royce for the development of three new engines, one of which, the Trent-500, will be used to power the new A340-500/600 Airbus. They are also currently considering an application from British Aerospace in respect of this aircraft. In addition, the Government support the UK aerospace industry under the Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration programme.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his very helpful reply, I ask him whether he accepts that it is absolutely essential that the British Government continue to assist the aerospace industry if this country and its European partners are to produce aircraft in future which can compete with the Americans and maintain or produce further skilled jobs in this high technology industry. Will my noble friend take this opportunity to point out that previous government launch aid has not only been highly successful for the industry but profitable to the Treasury?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, certainly. Of the two Airbus programmes aided by the United Kingdom, one has repaid its capital and is now paying interest to the Government and the other is comfortably expected to pay for itself and provide a good rate of return to the Government. The Government have received over £50 million in each of the past two years.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the undoubted success of Airbus, it is on European co-operation that the future of aerospace in Europe depends? What encouragement for European co-operation projects do the Government intend to provide, especially as the Minister of Defence recently indicated that there is a need for greater rationalisation and co-operation if that industry is to prosper?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister together with his counterparts in France and Germany announced on 9th December that they looked to industry for a plan to restructure the

1133
European aerospace and defence industries and a timetable for action by 31st March. My right honourable friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Defence have discussed with Ministers in other European countries the importance of facilitating industries' attempts to restructure.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does the appointment of Mr. Kevin Smith of British Aerospace as the sole industry representative on the acquisition organisation review imply that the Government are trying to reduce or eliminate GEC's involvement in the service aerospace industry?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I cannot comment on a particular case, and I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord said about investment in Rolls-Royce. What investment are the Government making in upgrading some of the major national test facilities, such as flight chambers and engine test beds, which are located at present at Farnborough? I believe that a major upgrading will be necessary to support the British aerospace industry when dealing with advanced programmes.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government recognise the concern of the Defence and Aerospace Foresight Panel that aerospace R&D expenditure has been reducing. The President of the Board of Trade has indicated that she will consider the case put forward for public funding of some of those actions under the foresight programme for an increase in the CARAD funding as part of the comprehensive spending review. When that review has been completed a decision will be made.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister give us a date for the Eurofighter coming into action?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am afraid not.

Nazi Victims: Assets
3.21 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to publish their report on the assets of Nazi victims dealt with by the Custodian of Enemy Property, and what action they will take as a result thereof.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the report is drafted. Some points are being clarified, and some further questions have also been raised by my noble friend Lord Janner, who was given an earlier version of the draft. The report will be issued as soon as possible. I can confirm that the Government will also publish a list of the names and other details of those who had their property seized under the trading with the enemy legislation. The list unfortunately will be incomplete as many individual
1134
case records have not been retained. But it will cover some 25,000 names of companies, partnerships and individuals whose property was seized.
The list and the report will give a history of the Government's handling of enemy property, which will contribute to a better public understanding of this complex issue.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, and especially his undertaking to publish the list of names of all accounts which were frozen under the trading with the enemy legislation—an action I have sought for some time. I hope that he will also undertake to publish any further information so that people who have suffered will have some chance of restitution. Does my noble friend accept that when the Custodian of Enemy Property confiscated property belonging to the enemy he also confiscated property belonging to victims of the enemy, mainly Jewish people, many of whom were afterwards murdered in concentration camps? Does he accept that that action was unworthy, unconscionable and insupportable? In the circumstances, will he undertake three things: first, when he says that he will publish the report as soon as possible, will he ensure that that will be soon? The Secretary of State was good enough to let me see the draft some two months ago. There must be time for the job to he done. We must be quick, because the survivors will not survive for much longer, and many are in need. Secondly—
Noble Lords: Too long!
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, finally will my noble friend be kind enough to undertake that the Government will do everything possible to do justice to people even so long after the event?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, work has started on the list of names. It will be published soon. There are 25,000 entries, all of which are manual. It is quite a job. With regard to the seizure of property, the trading with the enemy legislation provided for property to be seized from companies that were registered in enemy countries, and individuals who were residents of enemy countries. No distinction was drawn. The custodian was unable to make any distinction. The Government have to rely on information gathered at the time. Unfortunately, there are no means of identifying those who were victims of Nazi persecution and those who were not. The Government feel that by publishing the names of those whose property was seized some light can be thrown on the matter, and that in that way the situation can be clarified.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, what amount of assets is still held by the custodian? Why is he still holding them after 52 years?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the custodian is not holding any more assets.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the official papers lodged in the

1135
Public Record Office indicate a legalism and lack of compassion by some Ministers and officials in the late 1940s and early 1950s when dealing with the question of restitution to Nazi victims? Will he ensure that when it is published the report will contain effective measures to make long overdue restitution to the victims and their families?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is difficult to judge by today's standards actions that were taken many years ago at a time of war. I cannot comment on the legal points. Values have changed. In those days, power was paramount. Today it may be valued less, and we seek to earn people's respect. I am sure that the right thing will be done in the end.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the longer the list takes to complete the less effective it will be in procuring justice?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are aware of the urgency of the matter. As I have said, work has already started on preparing the list.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the custodian does not have any assets what has he done with them?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, there is a long history of what happened, which I have written down here. In 1948 the government instituted a scheme whereby victims of Nazi persecution could make a claim for property which had been seized in the UK. The original assets were not returned. Instead, ex gratia payments were made which were equivalent to the amount of money which had been seized by the custodian less a 2 per cent. administration charge. Records show that by 1958, 84 per cent. of all applications for compensation had been successful, resulting in total payments of some £2 million, with claimants receiving on average 84 per cent. of the amounts claimed. The scheme continued in operation throughout the 1960s. In 1957, the government also donated £250,000 from liquidated assets to the Nazi Victims' Relief Trust.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in his supplementary question my noble friend Lord Janner referred to Jewish victims of Nazi persecution. Are the Government aware that the Nazi regime also persecuted communists, trade unionists, disabled people and homosexuals? Can we be assured that those categories of victims will be included in the report to which my noble friend referred?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can give that assurance, although no distinction is made in the record between Jewish and any other victims.

Public Services and Severe Weather
3.29 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What urgent consultations they have had with the electricity, telephone and other public service companies, as well as with other appropriate authorities, about provision for severe weather emergencies.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government share some of my noble friend's concerns, particularly as regards electricity. The Government have therefore asked the Office of Electricity Regulation (Offer) to look into the steps taken by the public electricity suppliers to restore supplies following the high winds over Christmas. It wants to hear about their efforts to keep customers informed of when supplies were likely to be restored and the ability of the distribution networks to withstand such weather conditions. The Government have asked Offer to submit a report of its findings. The position on telephones was less severe. There was some loss of lines, particularly in the Selsey area, but they were fully reinstalled within 48 hours and 999 access was maintained throughout.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he accept that there is widespread admiration for the way in which those involved worked like Trojans in order to bring relief and contain the damage, especially as it involved being away from their families during the festive season? However, will my noble friend accept that the information given on the telephones is not accurate? I know of delays in restoring telephone services of more than a week.
Does my noble friend agree that there is a danger that where private firms are working in the sphere of public service the downsizing in the interests of profitability may have gone too far with the result that there is little spare capacity with which to meet emergencies that may occur? Does he agree that if global warming is to result in the more frequent recurrence of such turbulent weather the responsibility of the Government to protect those at risk is as great in this dimension as in the military dimension?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, as regards downsizing and staffing levels, it does not appear to the Government that the companies lacked resources. They appeared to have sufficient staff available. During the Christmas period, the electricity companies called engineers back from holiday. They received help from other companies that were not so badly affected. Outside contractors were also used. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the engineers on their work during that time.
It is the regulators' job not only to regulate prices but also to set standards of performance. They must ensure that all licensed companies have the financial capability to carry on their licensed activities. The Government are committed to putting consumers at the heart of utility regulation. We must ensure that we get the balance right and that consumers get a fair deal. That is the purpose

1137
of the review of utility regulation being undertaken by the President of the Board of Trade. The review will produce proposals in the coming weeks.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in emergencies such as the sudden cutting of electricity supplies there should be a good information service from the electricity companies to those affected and that they should plan for that service well in advance of the emergencies?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, all the electricity companies have emergency plans and regularly carry out exercises. Those plans were deployed in the severe weather emergencies which occurred. British Telecom instigated its storm plan. Some 350 lines were lost during the storm but were fully reinstated within 48 hours—unfortunately, not that of my noble friend Lord Judd.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has special consultation taken place with Scottish Hydro-Electric, which has more experience in dealing with bad weather than any other electricity company?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that the utility companies can learn from the experience of the Scottish Hydro-Electric company. I am not aware of any special consultation taking place, but I shall write to the noble Lord about the matter.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, would it not be more sensible to put all the utility provisions underground where they are not affected by problems relating to the weather?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it may be more sensible, but the cost of doing so is enormous. The electricity regulator commissioned a Mori poll in order to discover whether people believed the extra costs to be worthwhile. The result was firmly against.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend research why he has been briefed to inform the House that telephone services were restored within 48 hours when to my direct knowledge they were not restored for a week in some communities?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall take that matter up.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, while I am not yet in a position to give the House a definitive date for the Easter Recess, I thought that it would be convenient for your Lordships and others if I indicated that the Easter Recess will fall in the week after Easter—that is, in the week beginning 13th April—rather than in Holy Week. I shall give the House more precise dates, such as the dates of rising and return, much nearer the time.

National Lottery Bill [H.L.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the National Lottery Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 7,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 8 to 10,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 11 to 23,

Schedule 4,

Clause 24,

Schedule 5,

Clause 25.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question. Motion agreed to.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Teaching and Higher Education Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 29,

Schedules 2 and 3.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall not take the exodus from the House too personally. Indeed, I am delighted to see how many noble Lords have shown an interest in social security by putting their names down to contribute to the debate today. The list of speakers is longer than that which usually graces social security debates. I am sure that I speak for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the former Social Security Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in welcoming new recruits to the territory of social security reform.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Reforming the welfare state to meet the needs of the 21st century is one of the biggest challenges facing this Government. With our first Social Security Bill, we are taking an important step towards meeting that

1139
challenge. The Bill puts us in a position to be able to tackle the problems we inherited when we first came into government.
I am delighted that the former Secretary of State for Social Security, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, is making his maiden speech today. He is remembered with affection by those in the department—I asked them—apart from his smoking. Officials were always puzzled why only the Secretary of State was exempt from the no-smoking rule. Actually, they were not puzzled at all! I asked officials whether they had any amusing anecdotes of the noble Lord's time in the DSS. They assured me that there were plenty, but, unfortunately, none was suitable for me to repeat or for your Lordships to know.
We inherited a system full of rules that are difficult to understand or apply, forms that are difficult to complete correctly, and processes which are so complex that they lead to double handling and inefficiency. The system is difficult for staff to administer and mistakes are easily made which can lead to unnecessary hardship for customers and cost to taxpayers. We want to change that and make the system work better so that we get things right, and get them right first time.
We want to build a system that enables us to break through the barriers of inefficiency and waste. We want a system that allows us to focus on investing in people's opportunities and success instead of staff being tied to administering outdated procedures and customers being tied into the system.
Service delivery is essential to our approach to welfare reform. Our services must actively help people to move off welfare and into work. They must be focused on what customers need, and they must ensure that help goes to those who need it and not to those who try to rip off the system. They must be efficient services that offer the best deal to customers, taxpayers and staff.
We want—and I am sure the entire House wants—an active, modern service that delivers all those things. The difference that an active service will make for our customers is that the work of staff will change from passively paying out benefits to actively helping people into work where they can be better off than they could ever be on benefits. We are already finding some of that success coming through for our new deal for lone parents where, with the help of a personal adviser, lone parents receive support, guidance on job search, training and after-school childcare and job action plans tailored to their circumstances.
I shall give your Lordships an example of the feedback from one lone parent who said:
"It feels good to he back at work. I haven't had a proper job for 14 years and I wouldn't have had the confidence to go out and look if it wasn't for the jobcentre. They really helped me".
But the current legal structure ties us into the current problems. That is why this Bill is necessary to lay the foundations for modernising the service. The Bill paves the way for the reforms which I believe all Members of your Lordships' House will agree are broadly necessary. It is a large and complex measure and it may help the
1140
House if I start by briefly describing its structure before I talk in more detail about the measures contained within it.
There are three major parts of the Bill, together with a miscellaneous section. The first major part of the Bill, some 47 clauses, encompasses change to benefit processes. These measures will streamline the decision-making process, set up new arrangements for appeals and allow us to introduce automated decision-making and sharing of information where it is suitable to do so. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will take personal responsibility for that part of the Bill, and I am extremely grateful to him. I am sure that the House will be much enriched by the legal experience which he will bring to bear on those issues. Perhaps I may encourage your Lordships to take up any particular legal issues in relation to that part of the Bill directly with the noble and learned Lord if it is felt appropriate to do so.
The second part of the Bill. Clauses 48 to 65, covers changes in the national insurance contributions regime to introduce a new penalty and enforcement regime for the Contributions Agency; to close loopholes which will allow people to avoid paying national insurance contributions, whether it is payment in gold bullion or payment in vouchers; and to cut red tape through more alignment between the rules on tax and national insurance contributions.
My noble friend Lord Haskel, as a former major employer, has forgotten more dodges than most of us could invent. I hasten to say that of course he never practised them. He will assist my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and I on that part of the Bill.
Part III, Clauses 66 to 74. makes a number of changes to benefits. Most of the changes are minor, tidying-up measures but some, including Social Fund decision-making and child benefit for lone parents—a matter already aired at Question Time today—I shall talk about, with your Lordships' permission, in more detail later.
As I said, the Bill seems large and complex—indeed, it is large and complex—and there has been some comment on the number of regulatory-making powers in it. Because we want the legislative framework to be easier for people to understand, we have replaced parts of the existing law which are not being changed so that it will now be clearly set out in one place. That means that about one-third of the total 100 or so regulation-making powers are in fact re-enactments of existing powers in existing legislation. They are not new powers but are included for completeness and ease of reference.
Other regulations simply repeat the same provision in a number of areas, because we want to have a unified decision-making and appeals system across the range of the department's business rather than the confusing differences that exist now between various parts of the department's business.
The main point is that this Bill will create a robust framework for the administration of the new system. But we aim to replace a cumbersome and rigid legal

1141
framework with one that is flexible and able to respond quickly to change. Much of the detail will therefore be set out in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill.
One of the themes that echoes through the Bill is that it is important that we get things right at the beginning, at the initial information-collecting and decision-making stage, rather than to seek to correct it later by an elaborate, lengthy and cumbersome review and appeals procedure. I am sure that the House is agreed on that. Therefore, the first part of the Bill will pave the way for a modern, integrated service to customers. We shall introduce changes to the department's processes which will help us to get the all-important first stages right.
At the moment people are often asked to provide the same information, or report the same change in their circumstances, several times over to different parts of the social security system, and they risk being overpaid—and having to pay back the money—if they tell one part of the department and not others. That wastes time for the public and the department; wastes money for the taxpayer; and can put the claimant in serious financial difficulties.
People have responsibilities to provide us with accurate and up-to-date information. Our aim is for each person to be able to give us that information just once, in a way that is convenient for them, and for us to then be able to advise them how that affects all of their dealings with the department and other relevant bodies. In other words, this Bill enables us to devise modern business processes and maximise the benefits of future developments in information technology, so that we can offer a straightforward, simple and fair service.
It may be useful to consider an example of what currently happens when a parent who is in receipt of income support and housing benefit reports that they have found employment, First, they must contact the income support section of the Benefits Agency to report the change and provide details of their job. The income support clerk will input the details to the income support computer system, which will recalculate benefit. If the parent is no longer eligible, the clerk will terminate income support.
The parent must also notify the local authority that income support has ceased. If he thinks he may still be entitled to housing benefit, he must complete a new application form for housing benefit, again providing details of the job, and submit the form to the local authority. The local authority clerk will input details into the local authority computer system and a letter will be issued to the parent notifying him of any future entitlement.
The parent may then wish to claim family credit to supplement his earnings. In that case, he will complete another form, again giving details of employment, and send the form to the Benefits Agency in Preston.
Typically, a new employee may work up to a month before receiving his first wage. If this is the case, the parent may need to claim a Social Fund payment and will complete another form with details of earnings. If any maintenance is in payment the parent must report his changed circumstances to the Child Support Agency.
1142
Finally, the parent's new employers will, of course, deduct any national insurance contributions and notify the Contributions Agency.
In that example the lack of a common spine of information about employment details means that it is not possible to provide an integrated service to the parent. Information about the employment has been received by up to five clerks and entered into up to five different computer systems, which may or may not talk to each other. Each clerk will have access to his own computer system and although some of these clerks may be authorised to access another system, they do not have access to all systems and action is invariably duplicated, often building in errors on the way.
The Bill will create a much simpler process for deciding customers' claims. At the moment the system is incredibly complex. Currently there are 13 different types of decision taken by six different types of decision-maker—I could list them should your Lordships be interested. Each follows different guidance; several may be involved in the determination of a single claim. Again, I could take your Lordships through the different stages. But too often, because so much information is being processed from one to another, it is easy to make mistakes and it is difficult to correct those mistakes when they are made at that initial stage, even if they are the result of a simple error, without going on to a lengthy appeals process.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend say a brief word about the heavy emphasis on fraud in today's reporting of the National Audit Office's report, more especially in view of her most helpful statement to me on Tuesday (Hansard, col. 936) when she said that in the tens of thousands of cases of disabled people so far dealt with in the benefits integrity project, not one case of confirmed fraud has been discovered?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to take my noble friend's intervention. Indeed, I stand by everything that I said in that Hansard report. The report of the National Audit Office, which is published annually, is based on old information from the benefit project inaugurated by the previous government, who produced those figures of 12 per cent. suspected or confirmed cases of fraud and up to 20 per cent. error. I repeat what I said to my noble friend on Tuesday; namely, that in the benefit integrity project, which does not deal with the 1,200 cases from the previous administration's project, we have, so far, in the 35 per cent. of cases that we have examined, not found a single case of confirmed fraud.
I was talking about the problem of correcting error when my noble friend asked me to confirm that, when we are talking about disability benefits, we are talking about error and not fraud. We want decisions on customers' claims to be provided quickly, correctly and in a way that is easy to understand. The Bill before the House will reduce the number of different types of decision-maker from six to just one. All decisions will be made on behalf of the Secretary of State. Those decisions can be processed automatically and that will

1143
lead to quicker receipt of the accurate amount of benefit, while allowing staff to make decisions which require the exercise of judgment.
Perhaps I may give the House an example. A claim for benefit, such as income support for a single person, can be decided and awarded quickly by a computer "reading" the factual information shown on the claim form. However, if, for example, there is a question as to whether that person is living with someone in a husband-and-wife relationship, staff would first need to use their judgment to make a decision on the living-together aspect before the person's entitlement to benefit can be considered. That will also allow staff to take an early second look at disputed decisions and, if appropriate, revise them there and then without affecting the customers' right to appeal to an independent tribunal if they are still not satisfied.
One particular area where decision-making is unnecessarily complex at the moment is the determination of applications for budgeting loans from the Social Fund. The current system is confusing for customers, and time-consuming for staff. For example, let us take the situation where a claimant—I shall call her Miss A—wants £150 to purchase a range of clothing items for her four children for the winter, and wishes to apply to the Social Fund for a budgeting loan for that amount; in other words, she wants to apply for a budgeting loan not a grant. She has to complete a 20-page application form, answering questions which may have nothing to do with her application and which require precise details about each item needed, probably down to the last pair of socks. This is because the application form is designed to cover both loans and grants, each of which have different requirements for award and Miss A has to provide enough information for a discretionary decision to be made on each item applied for.
When Miss A receives the decision on whether she is to be offered a budgeting loan, she will also receive notification that her application has been considered under the other parts of the discretionary system—such as a community care grant and crisis loan—even though she has not applied for either of them. That only serves to confuse her further.
The Bill will enable the current confusing system to be replaced with a modern fact-based approach, allowing staff to reach quicker decisions which are easier for customers to understand and enabling them to know where they stand. In line with our overall strategy of helping people move off benefits and into work, we will remove the exclusions from budgeting loans coverage, one of which is help with costs associated with trying to find and start work. I am sure that we shall extend in a decent way the budgeting loan procedures of the Social Fund.
So far I have been talking about decision-making, but perhaps I may now move on to appeals. The Bill will enable us to provide a streamlined and straightforward system for customers to appeal against decisions to an independent tribunal. At the moment the system is slow, complex and cumbersome. On average, appeals take up to six months to be resolved, by which time the person's
1144
circumstances may have totally changed. Many cases take a year, while others take two years or more. That is simply unacceptable. Moreover, 20,000 people appeal against a decision on their claim each year at a cost of £5 million when it is clear at the outset that they have no possibility of succeeding with what I would call a "meritless appeal", simply because the law does not permit it. They go right through the system only to be told that they never had a chance to begin with because the law was applied correctly to the facts of their case right at the start.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples in that respect. A parent may appeal for a disability living allowance mobility grant for his or her three year-old child, only to find on appeal that no child under the age of five is eligible by law. Nevertheless, such a parent would have to go through to appeal. I was recently made aware of an appeal which was lodged following a decision to refuse a claim for invalid care allowance (ICA). The application form showed that disability living allowance, which goes to a disabled person, was in payment but only at the lower rate of care. The law is clear that you receive ICA only if a disabled person has middle or higher rates of DLA care. The claim was correctly refused. In confirming the adjudicating officer's decision, the tribunal stated that,
"(the claim) to ICA cannot succeed because he does not meet the required criteria".
Such claims are "meritless appeals" simply because they cannot be successful given the law on fact. They are time-consuming, frustrating for customers and a waste of taxpayers' money.
There is currently no independent right of appeal on national insurance decisions, except to the High Court on a point of law. We want people to have access to a quick and straightforward process for appealing disputed decisions. The Bill will rationalise and clarify the appeals procedure and significantly reduce waiting time. It will replace the five separate tribunal jurisdictions that we have at the moment—namely, social security, child support, medical appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and vaccine damage tribunals—with a single unified tribunal.
I know that some noble Lords have concerns about tribunals, so perhaps I may spell it out a little further. The Bill will also remove the rigid requirement for all cases to be heard by three-person tribunals. Instead, it will tailor the constitution of the tribunal to the needs of the particular case. Indeed, I know that that point worries those who are concerned about appeal systems. An example of an appeal requiring a three-member tribunal would be one on either the care or mobility components of DLA. The tribunal would require legal and medical expertise, together with disability expertise.
Examples of a tribunal requiring two members would be in the case of appeals involving the all-work test in incapacity benefit or labour market conditions in jobseeker's allowance. In the first instance, legal and medical expertise would be required; in the second instance legal expertise and someone with a knowledge of the local employment conditions would be required. An example of a tribunal requiring only one member would be in appeals involving the amount of capital

1145
affecting a claim for either, say, family credit or a Social Fund-funeral payment. In both examples, a legal expert would be required because we are dealing with straightforward facts of the law.
The Bill will also allow tribunals to correct their own mistakes, thus cutting out the time wasted when cases go to commissioners unnecessarily. For the first time—and I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this—it will introduce a new right of appeal against decisions in respect of national insurance contributions. The proposals in the Bill will also enable those "meritless appeals", like my ICA example or a case where a parent is seeking mobility allowance for a child under five, to be dealt with quickly. A tribunal panel member will give an explanation of why the appeal should not go to a full hearing and the person concerned will have the opportunity to dispute, check and correct any of the facts involved—for example, the child concerned may not be three but five and therefore is entitled to the benefit. Not only will these processes streamline the current system but the Bill will strengthen the essential independence of the current system by separating out the administrative from the judicial functions.
The Secretary of State will assume personal responsibility—at any rate she will assume responsibility; personal responsibility might be pushing it—for the administration of appeals through a new DSS executive agency established for that purpose. Demanding targets will be set to speed up the time it takes for people to get their appeal dealt with and know the outcome. The targets will be published and the results reported on. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, will continue to appoint the president of tribunals. He will also make all appointments to the panel of persons from whom tribunal members will be selected. All of the measures I have just outlined will help us to rationalise our dealings with customers and produce a fairer system.
Secondly, we are also dealing with major unfairnesses in the national insurance system, which is based on rights and responsibilities. It provides people with rights to benefits. We in turn expect individuals and employers to meet their responsibility to make fair contributions. At the moment a minority of employers are deliberately shirking their responsibilities. This Bill will make them pay up. It will, for example, make them pay national insurance contributions on non-cash payments given to employees through "restrictive covenants" which have become an increasingly common method of avoidance. For example, a director of a well-known takeaway restaurant chain was paid a bonus of £10 million. He entered into a legally binding agreement not to compete against his employer. The bonus was paid to him in gilts. Because he was paid in gilts and because of the restrictive covenant the company avoided paying NICs of more than £1 million on the bonus.
This Bill will also replace the outdated criminal offence for non-compliance with cash fines and align it with an Inland Revenue system. It will provide for new and tougher criminal penalties for deliberate cases of evasion and fraud and it will allow the Contributions Agency the power to take distraint action to recover debts. We shall be charging national insurance
1146
contributions on the provision of non-cash vouchers by employers—I refer to the ASDA scandal—as payment to their employees, thus bringing national insurance into line with tax. That way we shall not jeopardise the right of lower paid employees to obtain their full benefit rights because they are being paid below the national insurance level but their pay is topped up by vouchers in kind. However, childcare vouchers will remain exempt. We are making it easier for employers to pay their fair share by this alignment. That is what we hope the Bill will do. We have already consulted employers on the principles of these national insurance changes and we intend to consult them further on the detail.
Thirdly, the Bill also provides for some changes that were announced in last year's July Budget, and a number of other minor changes. The first is the measure in Clause 70 on lone parents which has been the subject of debate today. I shall set out quickly what it will do. This clause enables us to make regulations to align the rate of child benefit that is received by lone parents for their eldest child with the rate that is currently paid to couples for their eldest child. A lone parent on family credit who is receiving the higher rate of child benefit will currently have more absolute net income than a couple family with the same number of children on the same wage. The Government's intention is to focus help on the specific problem that lone parents face, that is childcare, while equalising the support available through child benefit. It will apply only to lone parents making new claims. There will be no cash losers among existing lone parents. Those who are not currently claiming because they are on income support or jobseeker's allowance will be able to make a subsequent claim when they move into work. This measure in the Bill deals only with child benefit. Noble Lords will recall that the House has already debated the package of regulations which equalised the family premium in income related benefits.
The Bill also sets a common time limit for backdating benefit claims of one month. Good government means setting the right priorities within limited resources. Where savings need to be made we believe that our priority must be payment of benefit to meet current entitlement. Yes, we have restricted the time period for backdating claims to benefit, but hand in hand with this is our commitment to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements and to streamline the processes involved in making claims. We want an active system which helps people to make claims at the right time and not just belatedly to recover the position after the due date. We are already looking to see whether the process for claiming specific benefits such as child benefit and widow's benefits could be made more straightforward to encourage a higher take up. The Benefits Agency is currently consulting a large number of organisations on ways to improve the information available to claimants. That consultation involves some 80,000 outlets.
This is a sensible and realistic approach. However, we have made special cases exemptions which will be covered in regulations. The first type of exemption will include cases where entitlement to a benefit is dependent on the claimant's, or another person's, entitlement to another benefit; what we call passporting. It is obviously

1147
unreasonable for administrative delays in awarding one benefit to deprive a person of entitlement to another. That relates particularly to invalid care allowance.
The second group of exceptions to the backdating rule will be for income-related benefits where special reasons exist, for example, where the customer has difficulty communicating because he has learning difficulties, is deaf or blind or there is no one to make the claim on his behalf. The third group of exceptions concerns customers who are forced to delay claiming because of difficulties in administration such as benefit office closures or where their personal circumstances such as recent separation or bereavement make it difficult for them to claim immediately.
I apologise to the House for the length of time I have taken in discussing the Bill but it is an extremely complicated and technical one. When we came into government we inherited a system that we believe is unacceptable and unsustainable. Social security spending is set to break through the £100 billion barrier. That is £25 billion more than the total amount collected in income tax in any one year. Too much of that money is being spent on paying the bill for social division. We want to use public resources wisely by investing in opportunities for people to support themselves through work and to reduce the bills of economic and social failure and thus to invest more adequately in education and health. With your Lordships' help we believe that this Bill will allow us to create an active, secure and integrated system of welfare delivery. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
4.7 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was somewhat surprised that the noble Baroness in introducing the Bill did not point out that a number of its proposals were put forward by the previous government. That is rather a strange omission. Therefore we not only welcome the Bill but we shall take credit for a number of the improvements in the procedural side of social security to which the noble Baroness has rightly drawn attention. In the light of that, we do not propose to vote against the Bill as such.
Nonetheless one feature of it is certainly not something that the previous government put forward; namely, the restriction on the backdating of social security payments. We regard the restriction now proposed as excessively draconian—not least the period of one month—for someone recently bereaved who wishes to make a claim or for someone who has been involved in a serious road accident. We shall wish to pursue that as we shall a number of other important amendments which it is right that your Lordships should act upon, given our role as a revising Chamber.
The most controversial clause in the Bill is, of course, Clause 70 which eliminates the child benefit premium for lone parents. That was proposed by the previous government and was fiercely attacked by the then Opposition. Indeed, the present Prime Minister, when
1148
interviewed on radio, and the present Secretary of State for Social Security, when interviewed for a newspaper article, said in categoric terms said they would not eliminate the child benefit premium for lone parents which the previous Government were proposing to do. Today the noble Baroness puts forward precisely the measure which she attacked in the most forthright terms when in opposition. I shall return to that point later.
The reality is that the Bill comes before your Lordships' House after a Third Reading in another place which resulted in a rebellion by the Government's Back-Benchers on a scale which, had there been a government with any normal majority, would have totally wiped them out. The reason for that rebellion is not surprising. Many of those in another place who had fought the election on the basis that they were not going to eliminate the provisions for lone parents felt that they had been misled, that they had misled the electorate, and that their own Government were now letting them down. It is a most remarkable U-turn to which I wish to return in my later remarks. Considerable electoral benefit was clearly gained from the attacks launched on the previous government. Now the present Government are reneging on what they then said.
The noble Baroness dealt with the first part of the Bill in great detail. I shall be brief because my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who is to speak later, is, like many in your Lordships' House, a great expert on these issues. I have no more than 30 years' experience dealing with the issue from the front end. My noble friend has served on tribunals and knows what it is like at first hand. Therefore I am sure that the House will value her comments.
We have severe reservations about how impartial the appeals procedure may now be, with the Secretary of State and her officials taking the decisions rather than the existing independent panel. Secondly, we are concerned about the possible lack of anyone with legal qualifications when many of the issues involved are of an extremely complex legal nature. We are also worried that some of the decisions, determinations and assessments may be issued by computers, which also have no legal qualifications and may well get out of hand. It is right that we should press these matters in Committee.
There is a topical issue that we should raise. It relates to whether there is a right for an individual to appeal against the composition of the panel and whether the lack of that right to appeal is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The same point has been raised in representations with regard to Clause 27. In another Bill we propose to incorporate the European convention into British law. It is suggested that there would then be a certificate of compatibility in effect if nothing in a Bill was in contravention of that new legislation. This Bill is going through at the same time as the Human Rights Bill. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether any provision in the Bill is incompatible with the Human Rights Bill. It would be foolish to pass provisions in this Bill which were contrary to the other Bill.

1149
The issue of backdating gives grave cause for concern. I think it is universally recognised among the various organisations outside this House which represent the disabled, the poor, and so on, that this is quite simply a Treasury cost-cutting exercise. No other justification has been put forward. If we consider the Bill carefully. and, as a revising Chamber, decide that one should give an opportunity for another place to consider it again, that is an issue which, while overclouded previously by the lone parent issue, should be reconsidered carefully.
The proposals on backdating are to be made by regulation. Far too much in the Bill is to be provided by regulation. The trouble with legislating by regulation is that when regulations appear one has no ability to discuss the issue and amend them. Therefore we shall need to consider carefully at Committee stage whether we should incorporate on to the face of the Bill—but with suitable provision for altering again by regulation at a later stage—the exemptions to the backdating provisions which the Minister in another place set out clearly but was not prepared to put on the face of the Bill. We should beware of passing legislation of this highly complex kind involving matters which are emotional and affect many of the poorest members of our society and leaving it to the Government to produce in unamended form a formula which we have not had a chance to discuss and amend in detail.
As regards backdating, the provisions are draconian. My noble friend Lord Blackwell is concerned about them in the context of housing benefit and rent allowances. We should consider carefully whether it is right that these backdating provisions should be as stringent as they are and whether it is appropriate for them to be imposed purely as a Treasury exercise.
Another problem has been raised. For want of better jargon I call it the "in-out" problem. I refer to the problem of the lone parent who at present receives the higher rate of benefit. He then goes into a job. If that job does not work out, he comes back on to benefit at the lower rate. Last weekend, the Sunday Telegraph had the remarkably paradoxical headline, "Welfare to Work hits job prospects". The article raised the point that I have just made; namely, that single parents will be on benefit at the higher rate, will go into a job which may not work out, and then find that they return to the lower rate of benefit.
The matter has been dealt with in two ways: in the Bill, and in the statutory instrument we discussed before Christmas. The noble Baroness was kind enough to clarify the position for me. As regards the Bill and child benefit, that is not a problem. I am told—no doubt the noble Baroness will be able to confirm it—that on that aspect there is not an "in-out" problem. If someone goes into work, and comes out of it, he will receive the higher rate of benefit. That is not true as regards the statutory instrument which we passed before Christmas. How on earth can the noble Baroness justify that? Surely the
1150
statutory instrument is totally incompatible with the situation where the Government are trying to get people on these benefits to take the risk of going into work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to reply to his questions. He made the point at the beginning of his speech that he claimed credit for much of the Bill. If he has such strong objections to the proposal, why did the former government first propose to introduce it'?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I make it clear that we stand our ground. It would be quite wrong for us now to do what the Government have done and make a U-turn. In the Commons, Mr. lain Duncan Smith made it absolutely clear in a speech yesterday that we shall be consistent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case why are the former government criticising the position of the present Government?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we criticise them simply for the fact that they totally misled the electorate, including single parents and organisations representing the disabled, by saying that they were not going to do what we thought it right to do. But we shall not renege on the view which we took. We shall continue to take the view that what we proposed originally was the right way to deal with these matters.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, am I to understand the noble Lord to say that he is in favour of the cuts but that he is not in favour of the Labour Party introducing them?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am saying that we have maintained a consistent position on them. We put forward arguments we thought were right at the time, and we shall stick to them. What the noble Baroness did I shall spell out in detail. Over some two years, time and again in opposition, the noble Baroness put forward arguments which were against what she is now doing. Let us look back at November 1995. I was astonished that in her introductory remarks the noble Baroness skipped over the matter very quickly. Indeed, she dealt with it so rapidly that, being interrupted for a moment as a message was delivered to me from outside, I found that she had already mentioned it. In November 1995, she described the measure she is now introducing as "vindictive, punitive and utterly wrong". That was her description of precisely what she has just proposed under Clause 70 of the Bill. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he also intend to quote later comments I made on a number of occasions when I said that, had we continued in opposition, we should have continued to oppose the measures in the context in which they were proposed. But in government we are introducing for the first time—which the previous

1151
administration failed to do—a national childcare strategy; a reform of child support in order to ensure that parents receive reliable maintenance; and, in due course, a minimum wage. In that context, the opportunities and possibilities for lone parents have been transformed.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that may all be so. But it does not in any way justify the fact that the noble Baroness has gone back on what she said. There is quotation after quotation. I shall not burden the House with them. There was the absurd statement on 25th February, when the noble Baroness described the proposal as "batty". Time and again she has opposed it. I do not in any way dispute that the Government are introducing other measures which will help lone parents, and if it is appropriate we shall support them. But that does not transform the situation. At no stage in criticising the previous government did the noble Baroness say, "If we do this, that or the other, it will be all right".
This is a very serious problem. I hope I have made the position of this Front Bench clear. We have not once received from the Government any explanation as to why they have reneged on their previous position. The only explanation we have received is that the measure is necessary because they are committed to retaining the previous government's spending limits. They knew that to be their commitment when they continued to criticise the previous government.
There have been other opportunities for the Government to put the matter right. Let us take, for example, the Chancellor's Statement just before Christmas. He suddenly found that he had a further £400 million as a result of changes in the European situation. That is vastly more than will be saved by this measure. Did the noble Baroness take the chance to say, "We must stick to our promises; we now have the money that we need?"
Or let us examine the situation regarding employment. Almost half of the money proposed need not now be spent, because the number of people in that category, as a result of the previous government's policy coming to fruition, is halved. A huge amount of money was therefore available compared with the very small amount that will be saved by this measure. The fact is that the Department of Social Security has not fought its corner with the Treasury to justify the position taken by the Government in opposition, and that is worrying.
I have spoken for much longer than I had expected; I have lost count of the number of times I have given way. I wish to make one final point. Yesterday, my honourable friend Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, shadow Secretary for Social Security, made a very fine speech, which was very little reported in today's press. He set out the way in which we believe the social security system should be reformed. It is complete common ground between both sides of the House that there is a need for reform. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out at Question Time, it needs to
1152
be done in a reasonably comprehensive way, and on principles. Yesterday, my honourable friend set out what we believe those principles ought to be.
I thank the noble Baroness for informing me in advance that the Government have today published a number of documents—"focus files"—setting out the principles which they believe should be the basis of the reforms. To the extent that those principles overlap, we shall most certainly support the Government. We do not dispute in any way the need for reform, and we think it important that it should be done. However, I am slightly surprised that the Prime Minister is apparently to tour the country putting forward the case for reform, but not saying what he intends to do about it. It is an empty box. We have received "focus files". We thought we should receive—and have expected week after week—a Green Paper that would set out the Government's intentions. When I posed the question to the noble Baroness on Tuesday, she did not answer. Perhaps today, in replying, she will tell us when she expects the Green Paper finally to be published. It has been delayed time and time again—no doubt as a result of disputes between the Minister for Welfare Reform and the Social Services Secretary. It now appears that it has been put on the back burner. Meanwhile, we are left with an empty box and no policy whatever except a minor Treasury cut here and there and a few odd bits and pieces apart from the measures in this Bill which, as I say, broadly speaking, we welcome.
We certainly hope to improve the measure in Committee and on Report. That is what your Lordships are here to do. The Opposition will do everything they can to ensure that the matter is dealt with, and that the social security framework is improved for the future to the benefit of our people.
4.26 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I rather enjoyed that little pantomime. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, talking about the Prime Minister's tour, reminded me of the favourite quotation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He refers to the gentleman who, at the time of the South Sea Bubble, formed a company for which he invited investment, "for a purpose hereafter to be disclosed".
I should like to begin by touching on slightly less contentious matters. I look forward warmly to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. It seems a very short time—though it is doubtless longer than it seems—since the noble Lord congratulated me on my maiden speech in the Oxford Union. It is about time that I had the chance to return the compliment. I look forward to doing so.
I also thank the Minister and, through her, her officials for the trouble they took over the briefing meeting in the Moses Room last Tuesday. It was extremely interesting and useful. I thank her especially for making available to us, much earlier than we should otherwise have received it, the department's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.

1153
We have no trouble with the principles of the national insurance parts of the Bill. We shall examine them in detail in Committee. There may be a matter which needs attention; I have not yet found it. There, the uncontentious part of my remarks must end.
I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, about fraud. I welcomed the Minister's reply to him. I am glad about the benefit integrity programme's findings. It confirms the point that I made many times in the previous Parliament; namely, that lumping together confirmed fraud and suspected fraud, and arriving at a category of total fraud, is a misleading procedure. I did not know how misleading it was, and I am rather pleased to find out. I thank the Minister.
I think the House knows perfectly well my views on the question of single parents. I shall return to the matter at considerable length in Committee. Meanwhile, we thought on these Benches that the House was entitled to a fresh voice. Therefore the person who will speak for these Benches on the subject is my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. The House is entitled to new arguments for the views that we have in common. I look forward with great pleasure to listening to her. My noble friend Lord Goodhart will exemplify points that I may make about the appeals system, and my noble friend Lady Ludford on the subject of backdating.
When I look at the general theme of the first half of the Bill, I am reminded of a quotation from 1974:
"All social security law rests on the concept of entitlement".
That was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It is a remark which is now sadly out of date. When one thinks how out of date it is, one sees how much the social security system and the power relations within it have changed during that period. Within the noble and learned Lord's vision, the law which came from Parliament was a binding framework on the Department of Social Security. Claimants—not "customers" in my mouth, I am afraid—have rights. Those rights were defended by law. But what we are getting now is a Department of Social Security armed with regulation-making powers which increasingly instinctively assumes that it makes the law. Like the proverbial absolute monarch who existed in the imagination of many kings and the reality of very few, the department thinks that of its own mere will and motion, it decides who is to be given benefit and who is not. So what is happening is that both the claimant and Parliament are being downgraded equally and those two downgradings are interdependent.
We have before us now a memorandum, which I hope the House will take extremely seriously, from Judge Bassingthwaighte, the President of the Independent Tribunal Service. It is an unusual step. He quotes the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor speaking at the Mansion House on 23rd July saying that it is right that the Government should be aware of judges' views on proposed legislation well before final decisions are taken. It is offered in that spirit and, I think, constructively. Judge Bassingthwaighte said:
"this is a Bill which was largely drafted under the auspices of the previous administration, yet completed and presented by the current one. May we, therefore, suggest, with due respect and deference,
1154
that a Bill which enjoys such hi-partisan support paradoxically needs to be challenged more strenuously in order to test its effects: that is what we seek to do".
It is what we seek to do also. That passage explains why it is vital that there should always be an effective third party in both Houses of Parliament and also why in any reform which may happen to this House I very much hope that a place will continue to be found for Cross-Benchers whose presence here is vital.
One is reminded occasionally, looking at the department's attitude to claimants to benefit, of the open testimonial produced by the servant who said: "Look, it says: 'During his period of service with me, Mr. Singh discharged his duties entirely to his own satisfaction—. There is a running down here of the entitlement. Judge Bassingthwaighte said:
"we … raise the question of whether the current plans take adequate account of what we see as a self-evident proposition: that change should be implemented with an awareness of possible detrimental effects upon the rights of the individual, the more so when those rights arise from an individual's relationship, contact and dispute with the State".
He might have added: "when in some cases the individual's very chance of life may depend on the resolution of those disputes".
The concept of right in the claimant is being slowly eroded. It is something of a contrast with the Human Rights Bill which I warmly welcome and which is going through this House at the same time.
To begin at the beginning, I have some misgivings about Clause 1 which ends the independence of the adjudication service. It makes it answerable to the Secretary of State instead of remotely to the Lord Chancellor. The Minister has made an argument for a single decision-making service, but that argument is not valid if the decisions are not of the same type. Whether or not a person was driving at 50 miles an hour is not the same kind of decision as whether one needs more photocopiers at the Old Bailey. I see no logic in saying that these types of decisions should both be made by the same type of person. Indeed, when there is so much confusion in the mind of the department between judicial and administrative decisions, I cannot see that decisions are likely to be better made when the department does not understand better what is being decided. It is taking the department into areas where its competence may be questioned.
For example, the Independent Tribunal Service points out that in Clause 25(2), the Secretary of State is empowered to decide what is a test case. That is, if anything ever was, a legal decision. The Secretary of State is not necessarily legally trained. There is substance in the question asked by Judge Bassingthwaighte: how should such a decision be challenged? As I see it, it can only be challenged by judicial review.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on 5th June 1996 expressed considerable anxiety about the prospect of things included in statutes being challenged on judicial review. I understand his concerns, but it is therefore important not to lead Her Majesty's judges into temptation. There is a wide open area of law here.

1155
It is an area in which I have no great appetite to have my curiosity satisfied. I would much rather have the Bill properly drafted.
Clause 2 provides that decisions shall be made by computer. I understand what the department is after, but computers cannot be held accountable for decisions; a person has to be. Perhaps I may take an example that happened to my wife last week. She bought a new dishwasher. The computer recorded that she had bought three dishwashers. She observed that it had done so. The salesman said that the supplier had at that minute closed, it was on the stroke of half-past five and he would put it right the next day. For whatever reason, three dishwashers arrived with a certificate that my wife had paid for all three. It sounds just like a housing benefit overpayment case. She was invited by the delivery man to take and keep all three of those dishwashers. She resisted temptation, but if she had not, who would have been answerable?
I am concerned also, like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the amount being done by regulation. I always want to ask not only what is the policy intention—and I am extremely grateful to the department for the care it has taken to explain that—but also, since we are leaving things on the statute book like minefields, waiting for those who come behind us, what other governments, whom perhaps we have not yet imagined, might do under these vires. For example, Clause 6 deals with qualifications for appeal tribunals. Could one whittle down the qualifications to nothing? I am reminded of the previous Home Secretary changing all the qualifications for the probation service. That is the kind of thing we would have said 10 years earlier that no government could possibly do. There is no such animal as a thing no government could possibly do. So if something can be done under the vires and we do not want it done, then we should narrow the vires.
Clause 22 creates powers to disentitle to benefit, but again there is no indication of the extent of these powers. I would welcome some clarification from the Minister on that. In particular, does the clause allow the Secretary of State in effect to create new grounds for disentitlement? Creating new grounds for disentitlement is on a level with creating new criminal offences. They are equally serious to those at the receiving end.
The department's memo to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee simply says that this is necessary to protect the integrity of public expenditure. Of course that matters. But there is a balance to be held between the integrity of public expenditure and the rights of the claimant. By being concerned only with one of those two, the department risks sounding a little like Mr. Singh waving his testimonial saying that he has discharged his duties entirely to his own satisfaction. That aspect will need probing.
The end of the inquisitorial powers of tribunals is ground for concern. The noble Baroness talked about the meritless appeal, one refuted by the straightforward facts of the law. But it is not quite as simple as she thinks. There is a case to which again Judge Bassingthwaighte called attention of somebody who
1156
appealed against refusal of a social fund grant for the costs of a funeral outside this country. There was a direct statutory prohibition on what he was asking for. It seemed like a meritless appeal. But on inquisition, investigation into the full facts, it appeared that it was discriminatory between the countries of the EU and therefore contrary to Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome. So that apparently meritless appeal succeeded. Until one looks into the whole facts of a case one does not know where cases of that kind might arise.
One-person appeals are a matter of concern to me. Again, the concern has been expressed, especially if that one person is not a lawyer, whether it might be contrary to Clause 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the fair trial provision. I am not a lawyer; I am still in the process of collecting legal advice and since it is a matter of case law, the legal advice is absolutely vital. But I shall wait for that legal advice with a great deal of interest and I shall listen to what other noble and learned Lords have to say on this subject with equally great interest.
What is being done on the anti-test case rule particularly concerns me. Clause 27 (2)(b) says that they should treat previous decisions as though they had not been made. That in effect repeats a provision in the 1990 Social Security Bill on which I had the House counted out and I was in the doghouse, until the Court of Appeal said that the Secretary of State's interpretation of the provision was so unreasonable that Parliament could not possibly have intended it.
I was then reminded of the story of the judge's children who saw crate after crate of champagne being carried into the House and they said, "Mummy, what is it all for?" "Daddy has been upheld in the Appeal Court". I was upheld with very great relief. Judge Bassingthwaighte suggests that Clause 26(4)(b) about postponing cases that may bear on test cases, is in effect an Executive direction to a judicial authority of what it should do. I shall listen to others on that point.
On Clause 72, on backdating, I agreed with a large part of what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said—in fact, practically all of it, and that is something to which we must return. The idea that the claimant knows all social security law is absurd. Is there anyone in this House who, outside this Chamber and without their papers, knows all social security law? I know that when I am asked about it by members of the public, I do not. I do not believe I am unique in that. People have rights and especially when there are cases of ill health, they may not be able to claim at once.
This Bill has been referred to as the "Peter Lilley memorial Bill". In the light of that description and in the light of the complete lack of change in it since the change of government, one might be induced to wonder whether the funeral baked meats do coldly furnish forth the marriage feast.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, first, I express my gratitude for what I took to be kindly remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl,

1157
Lord Russell, with whom, as he indicated, I have been sparring for at least 40 years. With the noble Baroness the sparring may only be beginning this afternoon.
A number of people have said to me in the past few weeks that a maiden speech here should hold no terrors for me in view of my experience elsewhere. I do not feel like that at all. I feel no better today than I did when I first spoke at the other end of the building nearly a quarter of a century ago. The main difference is that on that occasion I spoke about agriculture—a subject on which I then knew little except what the local farmers wanted me to say—whereas today I speak on a matter in which I have been involved as a Minister for a large part of the intervening period.
One thing that makes me nervous is that I am conscious even more than when I came that this is a very different place from the one which I left. I ought perhaps to confess—provided nobody whispers it down the corridor—that there were a number of occasions during the previous Parliament, especially on the days when I had to answer Prime Minister's Questions, when 1 had a sneaking feeling that my temperament was better suited to this end of the building than the other. Having said that, I suppose I ought also to admit that had I prayed on the way to the count last May, the prayer might have been, "Please make me a Lord, but not yet"! But here I am, and very pleased to be so. I thank your Lordships for all the help and kindness I have been given since I arrived.
There is one other curiosity for me, revealed in research which the Library kindly and helpfully carried out for me, about when I last spoke in any part of this building as a Back-Bencher. It turned out to be in April 1979 when I asked a Question of the Minister who is now the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and was in his place until a moment or two ago. In other words, this is the first speech in this building that I have made for the better part of 20 years in which I have spoken for myself alone and can say whatever I like. It also follows of course that it is the first speech that I have made for 20 years which I have had to do entirely for myself.
However, I hasten to assure your Lordships that even if I am unmuzzled—a word once used in respect of Mr. Gladstone, with whom I would seek to be compared in no other way—I understand that it is not the practice here, whether muzzled or not, to savage anyone and certainly not in a maiden speech. In any case, I would not be well placed to savage this Bill since, as has been clear, much of it bears a remarkable resemblance to proposals which emerged from discussions which I either chaired or took part in during the last administration. However, I should say that that is not the same as having no reservations about some parts of it. It is in the nature of collective responsibility—I hope perhaps this may be of some comfort to the noble Baroness, should she by any chance need a bit of comfort—that one finds oneself endorsing propositions that one might not have wished to put forward alone and unaided.
Having said that, I am conscious that there are many others wishing to speak and I do not want to trespass too much on the time of the House. But I should like to
1158
say a word about what I take to be, and the Minister's speech confirmed this, the main elements of the Bill, the first two of which have origins before the election.
The first element relates to lone parents. It is obviously difficult to say anything on this subject without risking a degree of controversy, though it is helpful to me that there is no controversy on the main points between the two Front Benches. I can perhaps best illustrate my attitude by referring to something I did around seven or eight years ago in the year when we resumed the uprating of child benefit. I did not take the opportunity at the same time to increase the rate of one-parent benefit, as it was then known. The plain fact is, and I ought to make this clear to the House, that the conclusion I had reached was that over the past quarter of a century or so, under governments of both colours and for reasons which seemed perfectly good at the time and probably were, we had ended up with a balance as between one-parent families and families of the more conventional kind which had become unduly favourable to the former by comparison with the latter. I therefore have no objection in principle to a move in the direction contained in the Bill though there will no doubt be a great deal of debate about whether it goes too far and about much of the detail. However, that is not something in which I would want to engage today.
However, I would add that there is a related and wider question which needs to be addressed either in the context of this Bill or in the context of the Government's broader reviews. It is the question of whether, whatever the balance between different kinds of families with dependent children, we have the right balance between what we do for those who have dependent children and those who do not. If I may use an old-fashioned phrase, I am firmly of the view that our system should clearly recognise that the taxable capacity—that is the old-fashioned phrase—of those with children is significantly less than for those without. It used to be recognised through the tax system; more recently it has been recognised through the benefits system; but I have a feeling—in fact, I am fairly clear in my own mind—that in the past quarter of a century or so, again under governments of both colours, we have allowed the balance to move against those who have dependent children by comparison with others and that that may need correcting.
I turn briefly to the Bill's second main thrust, the reform of the appeal system and its administration. Again I have to register a track record. As a more junior Minister, I was responsible for the relevant part of the cumbersomely titled Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, which sharply increased the independence of the appeals system, and was at that time seen as an important step forward. Your Lordships will therefore understand that I have some reservations about what is in the Bill, as indeed I had some reservations when moves along these lines were discussed at an earlier stage in the last Parliament. Nevertheless, I accept that there continues to be criticism, particularly of delays, and that it is right to look again at ways of reducing those and streamlining the system.

1159
As always, the problem is how to strike the right balance. I shall be surprised if we do not find ourselves looking carefully not at whether Ministers are convinced that what they propose is right, or even that your Lordships are convinced in due course that what is proposed is right, but whether those who will be subjected to it will think that it is fair and reasonable and sufficiently independent. It is a question that we must look at with care.
I come thirdly and lastly to the other ingredient on which I wish to comment, which is the only one entirely added by the new Administration. I ought to say quite clearly that it is the one which at present gives me the greatest difficulty. It is the backdating proposal, and confining it to a month. Obviously I shall look very carefully at what has been said, and no doubt will be said, about exceptions, and it may be that I can be reassured. But, as has already been said, we need to be very much aware that to very many people the social security system is not at all familiar. Of course there are people who know it very well and are frankly adept at playing it. It may well be that a month is quite long enough for them.
However, there are a whole lot of others, particularly since the introduction of SSP, whose dealings with the system, until a crisis occurs, are confined to the relative simplicities of child benefit at one time and retirement pension at another. When the crisis does occur—the disabling accident, the sudden first-time unemployment or the bereavement—they may well be far too preoccupied with the immediate trauma to have the time to start researching the mysteries of DLA and housing benefit. We need to look very carefully at that part of the Bill as well.
I conclude with a comment on the wider context into which the Government have sought to set the Bill; namely, their concern to modernise and reform the system, to constrain its costs and to improve incentives. I have no problem with those objectives at all. Indeed, I hope it may be acknowledged that, as a result of the efforts of the past 18 years, we are already much better placed than most other comparable countries in Europe and elsewhere. Undoubtedly, our problems would be much worse than they are but for the change in uprating conventions at the end of the 1970s, the reforms of the mid-1980s, including the modification of SERPS, the introduction of family credit, the introduction and subsequent extension of SSP, and many other changes.
Nevertheless, the world moves on, and in social security there is always more to do. It remains the most powerful single engine of growth in spending, it remains more complex than we would wish and it remains the case that for some people it makes it hardly worth working. To the extent that the Government's aims can be translated into workable propositions, while maintaining the support for those in need which a civilised society should provide, it will deserve, and I think will get, support. I was glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Higgins said on that front. For my part, I look forward to playing a part in your Lordships' consideration of these matters, both on this Bill and no doubt in due course on others, in what I hope may be a constructive way.
4.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, it is with a considerable sense of privilege and no little pleasure that I rise to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, on his speech. Many noble Lords have looked forward to the speech and those of us who have not had the privilege, or otherwise, of being in the other place are now fully convinced that those noble Lords were right. The noble Lord has considerable experience in this field and has also contributed in a notable way to the life of our nation and government. Your Lordships' House will be greatly the richer for his presence and his contributions.
I should like to congratulate him on his humour and on the very modest and gracious way in which he speaks and also on combining two qualities which are often felt to be impossible to combine. He is clearly a man of compassion and has been a Government Whip. I only wish that one could say that Bishops and Archdeacons had a similar combination of compassion and firmness of hand. Perhaps the noble Lord's prayer will at some time change to, "Lord, make me a Bishop, but not just yet".
I note that the noble Lord had a brief foray into Yorkshire—to Sheffield, Brightside indeed—in 1970. As a Yorkshire Bishop, I welcome that and only regret that it was for a brief time. I hope that he has returned, and will return, many times, unhindered by a general election, to enjoy a real and sustained Yorkshire welcome. I hope also—and this is no convention—that the noble Lord will speak many times in the House on this and many other subjects. He will be listened to with great respect and appreciation.
The Church recognises the complexity of the issues to be tackled in this thorough-going review and the Bill obviously represents only some aspects of the review. I would not presume to comment upon the technical aspects but I wish to come at this issue from a different angle. My wish is to speak as a pastor and to reflect the comments and experiences of pastors and others who live among people whose lives will be affected and indeed perhaps changed by the provisions of the Bill.
In Bradford between 1993 and 1995, a review took place under the aegis of the Bradford Faith in the City Forum called Powerful Whispers. Key decision-makers in the Bradford metropolitan district were called together on four occasions to listen in total silence to people who lived in four of the most deprived areas of that district so that they could hear those people speaking for themselves and saying, "This is what it is like to live here". I assure noble Lords that for the great and the good of Bradford—I fear that I was one of them—this was a very novel experience indeed. We sat there for two hours, with no argument and the only questions were ones of clarification. That was a very salutary experience.
I raise this and echo, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in wondering just who has been listening to the people who will be affected, as it were, at the grassroots by the provisions of this Bill. It is not difficult for the great and the good of any community, with the best of intentions, to legislate for others. I fully take the

1161
point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the place of the judiciary. From a pastoral point of view I would suggest also the place of the people, as it were, on the receiving end.
It is clear that many of the people to whom we spoke and to whom we listened were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that their views had not been heard. That included not being heard by those who represented them locally and nationally in government. Of course, they may have been quite mistaken, but that is the way in which they presented their position. I shall be grateful if the Minister tells us something of the processes by which the claimants who are most affected by the Bill have been listened to and how their voices have been heard.
I accept, of course, that there can never be unlimited resources available for provision for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Therefore, priorities and choices have to be made. The resources available inevitably affect those choices. However, I suggest as one of the underlying principles that in any healthy society the importance of inter-dependence is recognised and appreciated. In some measure we are all dependent on others for our survival and fulfilment. Yet we all strive to sustain a degree of independence. The notion of inter-dependence—mutual responsibility, if one wishes to put it that way—must challenge any society which allows and encourages the independence of some at the expense of others and which reinforces high levels of dependence and restricted responsibility for the poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable members of society. So there is a need to have a correct balance between inter-dependence and independence. That should govern our thinking on welfare provision.
I echo other noble Lords in expressing concern about the lone parent provision. People in that position speak frequently and say, "We do not understand and we are fearful about what is happening". Respected and very notable advice organisations produce papers to say that they too are fearful. I was very grateful to hear some assurances from the Minister earlier this afternoon. The need to support children must be paramount. Lone parents must be given a very proper provision.
I declare, if I need to, my own conviction that the basis of the well-being of our nation is the family, which is understood to be a lifelong and exclusive relationship in marriage of a man and a woman. I stand by that with no apology. But we all know that life is not like that; it is not tidy. Life is many faceted in terms of our relationships. That is why I stress as one of the great principles underlying this Bill that children must be supported as being of paramount importance. That is one of the great anxieties which I wish to reflect to your Lordships today, as expressed by those people in the poorer parts of Bradford.
I understand that, for example, single parents who get a Christmas job in order to earn a bit more money to provide presents for the children and who then lose the job will not now be punished by being treated as new claimants and therefore coming in at a lower rate. If that is so—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong£it is something that needs to be spelt out loud and clear
1162
because there is considerable anxiety expressed by people that if they take on a brief, short-term job they will in due course be penalised. The more clarification there is—and I hope that the Minister will do that—the better.
Finally, I would like to take up the concern about what this exercise is for and the principles behind it. The Minister mentioned the word "inefficiency". That rang some alarm bells. I suggest that there is an important distinction between being efficient and being effective. To be efficient one may take an existing system, organisation or process and improve it so that it is quicker and there are fewer delays. To he effective means that one must have some underlying principles as to why one is going into the exercise and what difference it is going to make to the people on the receiving end. One will be judged as to one's effectiveness not by how quickly it is done, but by how well those changes are effected. I believe that the principles are being published today. I hope that we shall have more put out about exactly why the exercise is necessary. Is it just a question of cost cutting? There is a great deal of cynicism around reflected when one talks to people in the poor parts. Why is this exercise being taken and where do we hope to get?
When I was a vicar and had curates we had a wonderful time on a Monday morning going through the sermon preached on the Sunday, whether by the vicar or whoever. The final question was, so what'? It was said, "Now, vicar, you preached all those words; you went through that detailed exposition and produced that wonderful set of words that lasted for 20 minutes. So what? What difference have you made; what were you trying to achieve and where do we look to see the difference?" I ask the Minister whether she will very graciously accept the question, so what, in that spirit.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shows: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on his maiden speech and welcome him to this House. It was a pleasure to listen to him today. I hope that the noble Lord will enjoy this new section of his career and that it is as fruitful as it has been in the past.
I turn to Clause 70 in the Bill, which deals with the removal of the child benefit premium for lone parents. My noble friend began her address to the House by saying that the project of welfare reform is one of the most challenging projects facing this Government. That is certainly true, as most of us would agree. I hope that a time will come when we can all say that this Government's reform of the welfare state was one of its great successes.
But in order to go along that route and to ensure that that great project results in a just society, I urge the Government, in facing that complex project, to welcome thoughtful contributions from well-wishers who are concerned, as the Government are, to ensure that a just society is indeed the outcome.
It is in that spirit that I should like to put a number of suggestions to the Government. I do so based on, I should like to think, a wealth of experience as an

1163
advocate in the courts and as one who has spent a great deal of my life involved with cases relating to women and children. I address this House also as someone who has recently taken on a new mantle in that I am the president of the National Children's Bureau, a body familiar to many of your Lordships because my new role was formerly carried out by one of the great favourites of this House, Lady Lucy Faithfull. I cannot pretend to be as knowledgeable or as wonderful as she was, but it is in memory of her that I now raise some of the matters that I am sure that she would have raised today on behalf of children.
I ask the Government to consider creating an exemption for parents with children under school age. I do so because I know that this Government are concerned about good parenting and that they recognise the importance of the early years in creating well balanced, well functioning and fulfilled adults. We all know—all the research shows it—that if there is good bonding and good attachment in young children to their carer or parent, those children will grow up less likely to have a mental illness, more likely to succeed in education, more likely to be in employment, and more likely to be productive members of society and active citizens. So, in the spirit of John Bowlby, that great expert in child development, I should like to recommend to this House the issue of good attachment as being a principle which should be the basis of our politics. The politics of attachment will ultimately be the politics of good citizenship. We should think of the precious resource that we have in our children and of the importance of giving them the best in their early years.
I am concerned, as are the Government, I am sure, that parents of very young children are able to do their very best for them. There should be recognition that that is harder for single parents. In answering a Question at the beginning of today's proceedings, my noble friend the Minister said that there was no evidence that life was harder economically for sole parents. I suggest that there is a body of research to show precisely that and that the Family Policy Studies Centre could produce it for her. However, even without research we know as sensible human beings that, of course, life is harder for single parents. Think about it in practical terms: if you are on your own with young children under school age, it will not be easy to get them on a bus and down to a supermarket some distance from home to avail yourself of the less expensive food there. You may have to resign yourself to shopping at the local corner store where food is likely to be more expensive. Lone parents are also likely to find that their household bills, such as heating, are likely to be as expensive as those for two adults who are bringing up their children on benefit. We know that. There is an old adage that two can live as cheaply as one and it is certainly true with regard to some of the bills facing young families. So, a parent bringing up children on her own—I use the female pronoun because it is usually women who are in this position—experiences special hardship. We know that from the use of our common sense as well as from personal contact with those who face that arduous business.
1164
We also know that in order to be a better parent every adult needs social connections with other adults and sometimes they need precious time (albeit only a little) to meet other adults. Those without a partner to give them that space in which they can, say, visit a friend have to pay for babysitting, which is not always readily available inexpensively or without cost. We must recognise that bringing up children alone is hard, tough and demanding. There will be times when it will be easier to shop locally than to trail the children miles to find cheaper purchases. That is why it is important that we recognise the particular problems facing lone parents.
All of us know that quality childcare is difficult to find. As a professional woman with young children, finding quality childcare has been one of the things that has exercised me most about conducting my professional life while fulfilling my role as a mother. I have always been anxious about the quality of the childcare that I can obtain yet I do not face any financial problems. If professional women like myself are concerned about that and find it difficult, what must it be like for a young mother on her own, seeking and wishing to work but knowing that she is the best person to look after her children because she cannot afford a suitable substitute? Are we really thinking of young children when we put measures such as these in place? Perhaps we should be a little more far-seeing in approaching this reform.
I have had some research carried out into the number of children who will be affected by these measures. The research made available to me by the Library in your Lordships' House, which has contacted the Department of Social Security, states that there are 216,740 such children under five. The bill for them is meagre at £68 million per annum. Are we concerned about the costs here? Is this a cost-saving exercise? If so, I urge the Minister to consider the figures. I am relying, of course, upon the differentials which have been presented to us by the department. I urge some consideration of the figures to appease those who are concerned about the finances.
My second suggestion for my noble friend is that there should be a period of grace for those who suddenly become sole parents. I raise this matter because it is important to recognise the pain of children who are suddenly bereft because one of their parents leaves. When a child's security is suddenly threatened by one parent leaving home, it is often the reassurance of the other parent which provides that child with the well-being to enable him or her to continue functioning and developing well in the years that follow. That is why I am asking the Government to consider a period of grace for those parents who are suddenly abandoned or left or who suffer a breakdown in their relationship.
I am particularly concerned about cases involving domestic violence. Over the years, I have conducted many cases involving domestic violence where the woman has felt that the only way in which she can survive is if the abusive partner leaves home or if she leaves, taking her children with her. Whatever the circumstances—whether the abusive partner is forced to leave by the obtaining of an injunction or whether the

1165
woman leaves and sets up home elsewhere with her children—those women should not be expected immediately to seek employment. I strongly urge the Government to take into account the experience of some of us who have worked for many years with those facing such extreme circumstances and who know the desperation of such parents.
I am married to a doctor and so have access to the British Medical Journal. There was an article in that publication which I have used in the past quite out of the present context. However, I believe that it may he useful to the Government. The article was written by a number of researchers and published in the BMJ in April 1994. Its purpose was to ask what happened to the children of single parent families. The research was able to demonstrate that in many cases they did just as well as other children, but some did not. Therefore, the researchers looked at the factors which made the difference between a child not performing as well as another child with two parents. Why does the child end up having educational problems and become anti-social, or whatever it may be that creates the discrepancies?
Two main factors emerged: financial hardship and disruption. One key factor that reduced the performance of a child from a single parent family was real financial hardship. My noble friend may say that if the parent is in employment the family will be better off. However, all of the research suggests that, particularly in the early years, children require real nurturing and continuity, especially if they have one parent. I understand that financial hardship is very much on the Government's agenda.
The second factor—disruption—feeds into the issue of providing a period of grace for those who suddenly face separation. It was found that the children of lone parents—whose single status had been created by their partners leaving the home with an unpleasant separation or divorce—were likely to founder at school and in their development. What was required was some kind of security created by the presence of the single parent. All I say to the Government is: please bear that research in mind when looking at ways to ameliorate the situation of those with very young children and those who face a crisis in their lives. The period of grace that I suggest may be in the order of 12 months.
I should like to put a final suggestion to my noble friend. I know that she will listen to these suggestions with good will. At the moment a lone parent in work receives family credit and is able to keep £15 of the maintenance from her former partner before she loses that family credit. Pound for pound the maintenance recouped from a former partner will be taken from her family credit save for fl 5. However, if she is not in work but is on income support she is not allowed to keep any of it. Therefore, there is a real discrepancy between those in work who benefit from the recovery of money from a partner and those who are on income support. Surely, that inequity is a matter to which the Government should have regard. In trying to reform the welfare state—I know that my noble friend is involved in reform of the Child Support Agency—I ask the Government to consider a maintenance disregard for women on income support. This is another method by
1166
which the Government can try to assist lone parents given the special privations that they face in bringing up their children.
At the beginning of this debate I was saddened to hear the sneering from the other side of the House. I spend a lot of time saying to my children that sneering is one of the ugliest ways of behaving towards others. I find it unpleasant to come to this House and see it occurring here. The temptation in the face of sneering is to dig in one's heels and believe that one cannot be seen to be considering creative suggestions. I ask the Government to ignore that kind of uncreative, unhelpful sneering from other Benches and listen with understanding and good will to those who from experience and good will make suggestions to them about how to reform the welfare state to achieve the just society that we all so earnestly want.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should also like to express my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, on his maiden speech. He obviously has great knowledge of the subject and is also a politician with a reputation for great integrity. I believe that it is as much an honour for the House to receive him as it is for him to join it. I very much look forward to his further contributions to our debates because I know that everything he says will be informed by both knowledge and honesty which is a very powerful combination. It is also a great pleasure for me to follow the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose speech showed both insight and courage, and the right reverend Prelate who reflected concern for a poor community strained by the circumstances of single parenthood, child poverty and the desperate effort to make ends meet.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I fully understand that all of us will have to undergo the process of recognising the need to modernise the welfare state. In so far as the Government have two major objectives I can safely say that we on these Benches accept and recognise the importance of them.
As I understand it, the first of those objectives (which I commend) is that there should be a challenge to the dependency culture and that it is not a good thing for people to be dependent on benefits if they have the means and the ability to support themselves and their families. We all recognise that there are dangers in a dependency culture. Secondly, I believe that many in this House recognise the importance of helping people to return to work and that there are particular difficulties confronted by lone parents and disabled people in that respect. No doubt this is an issue to which we shall come later. In so far as the Government are able to ease that transition through provision for training, childcare and assisting people in the difficult problem of suiting themselves to jobs, none of us finds difficulty in commending what they seek to do.
But the whole of the attempt may founder if there is a lack of compassion and understanding for what it is like to be poor, lonely, to have very little information and to feel that in the end the bureaucracy is not on your

1167
side. I profoundly fear—I speak much more in the spirit of sorrow than in trying to make some cheap party point—that for lack of a sufficiently carefully thought through policy, the Government are in great danger of being seen widely in the country by many of those who voted for them with hope in their hearts as having fallen short and, in extreme cases, to have betrayed them.
In following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I should explain briefly why I say that and why I hope and pray that the Government will think further about some of the ways in which they may modify their present policy in order to modernise the welfare state with the sincere and broad support of those who wish it well. We have a situation in which benefits are to he cut by April 1998 for lone parents, both those on income support and those drawing child benefit and currently in work, long before the provisions of welfare-to-work are to be put in place. Even the announcement of the provisions of welfare-to-work predate the achievement of them by many months. Childcare is not in place and the childcare experts, or young people, have not been trained. The skills are not yet available to those who are to seek work. All that means, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out, is that there is a space for the individual family between the cutting off of its benefits and when it might be able to benefit from welfare to work. Into that year, many of them will tumble, with nothing to look forward to but despair.
Secondly, in addressing the issue of the poorer section of the community—lone parents, 59 per cent. of whom fall into the poverty area, according to the DSS's own statistics—the Government are giving encouragement to those who seek to scapegoat lone parents, and that frightens me. One of the objects of reforming the welfare state must be to accept its inclusivity, and not to exclude some parts of our society from that society. The social exclusion unit established by the Government is intended, I believe, to avoid such an outcome.
Thirdly, the Government rely too heavily—I suspect that they know that—on the argument that lone parents would be better off if they worked. They point to the limited PSI study, which argues that there should be a benefit of a net £50 a week. That study was flawed in two ways: first, 79 per cent. of those in the study paid nothing for childcare; and, secondly, they paid less than £5 a week for transport. Both are deeply unrealistic figures. I made some inquiries about childcare costs in London and outside. The range of what one might describe as decent childcare for children not yet at school was £80 to £160 a week.
Let us suppose that our single parent is lucky enough to obtain a job; that that job pays her £4 an hour; and that she works 40 hours a week, which would be a heavy burden for a lone parent. She would earn the equivalent of what she will pay for childcare for one child in London, and probably gain only a few pounds once she has paid for childcare outside London.
I was a fortunate single parent because I had a substantial income as a Minister of the Crown. It is difficult to begin to describe the strains, emotional demands and difficulties that lone parents face. One
1168
adds to that the terrible problem of just trying to make ends meet, of worrying about whether you can pay for the television licence; whether you can pay for a decent school meal; what you do when you wake up and one of your children suddenly has an asthma attack. Do you go to work, or do you risk losing your work—much low paid work falls into this category—because you stay at home with the child? It is a desperate agony of conscience with which to face tens of thousands of our fellow citizens.
I strongly support the plea, so reasonably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that we look again at the position of lone parents with children under five—they form the most vulnerable group in society and the most vulnerable section of that group—and ask whether we have to take lone parent premium away from them. My honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Newbury pointed out that by the simple device of freezing employer thresholds, the Government will already have brought into their revenues an additional £125 million next year. That is more than twice what will be saved by cutting lone parent premium. That is only the beginning of it. There have been references to reductions in employment benefits and other areas, which mean that the Government do not need to make that cut to save public expenditure.
There is one other possible argument. It is the moralistic argument. It is that single parents are, in a sense, immoral, and therefore should be punished: 1.7 million of the 2.5 million children living in poverty in single parent families come from families where the parent is widowed, divorced or separated. I hate using that argument, but it needs to be put because, as several noble Lords have said, those of us who have been constituency Members or family lawyers have met many families where the spouse has just walked out—sometimes without notice. They have met many families where the children are being sexually abused by their parent. How can we suggest to such a family that it should also be punished by the state?
I hope that the Minister, for whom I have great respect, will be able to answer in precise terms the question put by the right reverend Prelate about whether single parents, if they take a job and subsequently lose it, or if it is a temporary job, will thereby lose the single parent premium. It is a crucial question. I am still not clear about the answer, because all the briefing that we have received from the charity bodies says that it does mean that. It was not clear from the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, what the outcome is. I shall not attempt to answer it myself.
I fear that the Government—I say this with respect—are besotted by the American example. I know of what I speak, because, as some noble Lords will be aware, until recently I spent half my time teaching at Harvard—the very university from which much of the expert advice upon which the Government rely has been drawn. I am terrified that the next step in modernising the welfare state will be the replacement of child benefit by earned income tax credit—a system well-established in the US. It has two great drawbacks. The first is that

1169
it requires family taxation and the abandonment of individual taxation. That is a battle which women have fought for years and years.
Secondly—and this is more troublesome—the scheme requires that the EITC be paid to the head of the household, which—I do not say this with any prejudice—is normally a man. All the research evidence shows that that is much less likely to be spent on the children. I pray and hope that the Government will give profound thought to that point, because in the US at present the proportion of national income going to the bottom fifth of families with children—I have the figures drawn from the latest statistics available, the so-called population surveys of March 1997—is 3.91 per cent., and, after EITC, 4.37 per cent., whereas the top fifth has 45.51 per cent. of national income, and, after EITC, 45.31 per cent.
I do not want to see us emulate that. That is moving in the direction of extreme inequality and profound poverty among children. Before the Government move further along those lines—I accept the two major principles about which I have already talked and with which we agree—perhaps they will look at Denmark, where the level of child poverty is 5 per cent., or Holland where it is 12 per cent., and consider whether the model that seems to have so much influence on the Treasury in particular is the best model to follow. I hope that the Government will pause to think again about those elements in their plan—not the whole plan—which might jeopardise the enterprise, because it will be seen by the country as a whole as lacking human compassion and understanding.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, welcome the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who I am sorry is not in his place. I found it witty and informative. I look forward to hearing from him again because I know that he has wide experience of the subject which we are discussing today.
I welcome the intentions of the Bill as explained by my noble friend the Minister. Rightly, the Government are attempting over a period to reform the welfare system and this Bill is part of that. I do not dispute that the system requires reform. The social security system is immensely confusing and there is some justification for the often voiced criticism that it does not benefit adequately those most in need. It is, or should be, the prime concern of politicians to protect the vulnerable. It is my belief that that is part of the Government's agenda and I welcome that.
However, I wish to raise several points in connection with the Bill. I do so constructively because I respect the intentions spelt out today by my noble friend the Minister. For a number of years I was a member of a social security tribunal in East London. It was a three-person tribunal with a legally qualified person in the chair. Most of the people we saw were very poor, sometimes not very literate and mostly unrepresented. We did our best to put them at their ease. We explained our function and the legally qualified chairperson explained in simple terms the legal framework in which
1170
we operated. We then did our best to ascertain from the appellant the elements of his or her case, utilising the inquisitorial method. Even if we did not eventually find for the appellant, I think that all believed that they had fair treatment.
What concerns me about the proposals in the Bill is that there would appear to be an intention to depart from that structure in regard to appeals. Apparently, a legally qualified chairperson will not always be required. Three-person tribunals could be abandoned. It is apparently thought necessary because there are currently long delays before appeals are heard. The Minister pointed that out today.
Will the Government reconsider that matter? Three-person tribunals have operated successfully for a long time. Tribunals are respected by the people who appear before them. It is possible for the wing members, of which I was one, to play a vital role in putting an appellant at his ease and helping him to tell his story. No one wants long delays, but I question whether the way to deal with that is by altering the present system as proposed.
One way forward would be to improve substantially the manner of conveying decisions to claimants. If greater care were taken at that stage there would be fewer appeals which did not stand much chance. The machinery would not become so clogged up. The Council on Tribunals has stated that it does not consider it appropriate to move from the present system of three-person tribunals. It states that improvements should be made first in tackling the unsatisfactory nature of the decision-making. Therefore, I hope that the Government will decide to look again at that aspect of the Bill.
I am also a little worried about the cut in the time limit for appealing. Currently, claimants have three months in which to appeal to an appeal tribunal. I understand that that is to be reduced to one month. I do not understand why that is thought to be necessary. Some claimants may require longer, particularly if they seek independent advice. As we know—and everyone has said so today—the law in relation to social security has become increasingly complex over the years. Claimants may not know what their entitlement is. I do not see that much is to be gained administratively by reducing the period to one month. Apparently, the Government have stated that where there is genuine difficulty in making an appeal within the time limit, regulations will provide for late references to be accepted. It is not clear what those special circumstances will be. Will they be bereavement, marriage breakdown or illness? That is bound to lead to arguments about what is and what is not exceptional. Will the Minister explain why the alteration has been felt necessary?
There are similar arguments about the issue of back-dating. Many noble Lords have addressed that problem. The Bill makes provision for benefits to be backdated only for one month. I believe that that could penalise people, particularly elderly people who may not understand what entitlement is available. They may not be very well or they may live alone with no one to

1171
help or advise. It seems unfair to penalise them in this way. If they are entitled to benefit should they not receive it?
What about widows? As several noble Lords have said—and I can attest to it—being a widow or becoming widowed is a traumatic experience. Should widows lose benefit because they have not made application within a month of their husband's death? Suppose widowhood occurs as a result of an accident in which the widow herself is injured? Will she lose benefit if she does not claim within one month?
Again, what about people who later in the day find that their illness relates to an industrial condition? Asbestosis is a case in point, or it could well be silicosis or a similar disease. Are people to be limited in their claim for benefit if they do not claim within one month? I cannot believe that the idea is simply to save money on benefit which will not in future be paid. That would be most unfair. Surely, if there is an entitlement the benefit should be paid and I believe that the savings would be minimal. Will the Minister be kind enough to respond to that point?
As regards lone parent benefit, I share the views which have been expressed today by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. A great deal has been said about that today by people who have much experience. I support the Government's declared intention to get people into work, including lone parents, if that is a feasible possibility. However, I am worried lest the new legislation giving entitlement will start to bite before the structures are in place to provide that work and the childminding agencies to enable women to work. There will be women who, for various reasons, will not be able to work. The blanket approach envisaged in the Bill will mean that they will be substantially worse off.
I realise that it is not the intention to remove benefit from those already receiving it and that the proposed measures will apply to new claimants only after the date set out. As has already been asked, what if the women who decide to try to work find it unsuitable for various reasons? Perhaps transport is non-existent or very poor, or the child or other members of the family become ill, or the work is not suitable. From my reading of the Bill, I understand that a woman could return to benefit but at a reduced rate, just like a new claimant. Today, the Minister indicated that that issue will be dealt with in some way, but that is not obvious to me from the Bill. I should be grateful if she could comment further in response. I shall be pleased to hear that that is the case and that there has been a misunderstanding on the part of the agencies, which appear to have written to everyone about the problem.
Generally speaking, the women will be able to obtain only low paid employment. The minimum wage is not yet in place. We must remember that many lone parent families consist of women and children who have been abandoned. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made that point most strongly. I understand and applaud the intention of the Government to ensure that the Child Support Agency does its job of ensuring that absent fathers pay towards the maintenance of their children.
1172
But, as we all know, that is not always plain sailing. Many absent fathers may have employment problems and others may have second families. Complex issues are involved and some of the problems raised today have not been answered. I urge the Government and the Minister to look again at some of the representations that have been made on that very difficult and complex issue.
As I said, I know that the intentions are good but there are areas of the Bill which I am sure would profit from being given a second look. That is one reason that we have scrutiny in your Lordships' House. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that have been raised.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, this week in particular it is a great pleasure not only to follow my noble friend Lady Turner but to declare that I am wholly in agreement with every word that she said.
This would be a wholly unrealistic debate if we failed to place it in the context of the situation which my noble friend inherited and which she seeks to address. First, we have poverty and despair to a degree which should induce in us a sense of crisis. According to a recent report Breadline Britain in the 1990s, one-fifth of Britain's population is living in poverty, defining that word as most people would define it. One-quarter of the European Union's poor are living in this country. More than 100,000 people are dependent on means-tested benefits.
I remember some 10 to 12 years ago when we were shocked to see homeless people reappearing on the streets of London for the first time, as I recollect, since the 1940s. There are now 150,000 people deemed to be homeless. Perhaps worst of all, there are 5 million people in workless households. At last we have an Administration who offer young people an opportunity to work and seek to create a climate where a workless, aimless, hopeless existence is not seen as normal and inevitable.
Secondly, we have a system of social security administration where some 68 per cent. of all benefit decisions are open to criticism; where each annual report of the Chief Adjudication Officer gives rise to further reasons for anxiety; and where we have developed a culture of not accepting adjudications, irrespective of their contents, purely because they are more likely to be wrong than right.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the Government's proposals are largely economy-led. I am sure he would agree that that is not necessarily a reason for rejecting them. Annually, we spend about £4 billion to administer social security benefits. Therefore, we should be irresponsible if we did not reflect that some of that money might be directed to the pockets of those who need it. If the Government's efforts to improve the standards of decision-making at first instance are successful, that will go far towards solving the problems of overloading in the appeal system.
That leads me to the third factor in the crisis situation. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, in a speech which was as entertaining as it was well informed, referred to

1173
delays in the appeals system. Anyone with experience of visiting tribunals in the ITS system will be familiar with the constant fight against delays because they are dealing with people for whom each day's delay is another day's hunger and possibly another day wearing shoes which let in the rain. Noble Lords will appreciate—and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will agree with me—the frustration of members of tribunals when a hearing cannot take place because the appellant does not arrive, because a necessary report is not available or because it transpires that there is not an issue to be decided. That is not always because the appellant has got it wrong but is frequently because the department has not properly reviewed its own decision. Therefore, there is great need for a government whose approach to social security goes beyond considering what benefits can be reduced or eliminated.
One aspect of the background which should not be overlooked—while any attempt to generalise must ignore a substantial number of counter examples in a system which received more than 290,000 appeals in the last reporting year—is that ITS tribunals are fair, for the most part well informed, careful, hard-working and dedicated. Those involved in the administration are troubled about the future of their jobs; are frequently overworked; but they are trying hard to cope in difficult circumstances. It would be remiss if we did not pay tribute to the president, who was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, Judge Bassingthwaighte, whose term of office is unhappily about to terminate, for his work in bringing a worrying situation under some form of control and in particular for the annual reports which he has initiated. They are a model of open and transparent administration. He has helped to identify some of the changes in administration which need addressing.
Therefore, I applaud the concern of my noble friend and her colleagues, at the very outset of the new government, to turn the tide. It is sad that I now come to the word "but". Yet again, I must declare an interest. I am privileged to chair the Council on Tribunals. It was a standpoint from which, more than once, I found myself supporting my noble friend when she spoke from the Opposition Benches. I am sure she will understand if I am not necessarily reduced to silence by a change in government.
Indeed, it is something of a disappointment to me, although not necessarily to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, as he indicated, that some of the proposals in the Bill were ventilated by the previous government in their consultation paper. The council responded to that paper and we were grateful to those officials from my noble friend's department who were prepared to come to discuss the proposals with us. We welcomed some of the proposals. We expressed anxiety about some of them. Good and bad, some have remained substantially unchanged by a change of government.
First, we welcomed the attempt to improve the standard of first instance decisions. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, we added. "If you are thinking of improving the appeals system, would it not be better to wait to see how it works when fewer decisions need to he appealed and when the reasons, explanations and
1174
general paperwork available to tribunals has improved?". We were not saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Rather, we were saying, "Before you think about mending it, see how it functions in conditions where it has an opportunity to function properly".
I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in saying that it may have been better if, before the legislation had been introduced—making changes in the appeal system—some thought had been given to the relationship between the judiciary and the administrators. It is always a difficult problem. Administrators must deal with resources which are not always sufficient to produce an optimum solution. The judiciary are concerned to ensure standards of justice. Sometimes there must be a compromise as to how differing concerns are to be resolved.
I know that the Minister's burdens are already fairly substantial but perhaps I may add to them. I recommend to my noble friend a recent report by the Council on Tribunals called Tribunals: their organisation and independence which addresses some of those questions and which seems to have attracted a wide welcome.
Paragraph II of Schedule I to the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling administrative officers to make some determinations. Indeed, reference has already been made to that fact. For myself, I would not necessarily quarrel with that provision in principle. However, when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply—or, if not, at some subsequent stage before Committee—perhaps she will be able to enlighten us as to the kind of determinations that the department has in mind, who will appoint the administrators for the purpose of those determinations, and will they be answerable to the president.
There are two other questions which may have to await the Committee stage for their resolution, but I believe that they are sufficiently fundamental for me to raise them now. One of them was referred to a moment ago by my noble friend Lady Turner. There is deep disquiet about the erosion of the right to a three-person tribunal. The Government recognise the value of bringing a diversity of experience to bear. That is true not only in different cases but also in the same case. Where the issue is one of fact, one of need or one of judgment, or, indeed, one of what is reasonable, a cross-fertilisation of backgrounds may be of great value. It can certainly reinforce the confidence of litigants in the combined wisdom of the tribunal. It is not necessarily a question of which expertise is essential to the precise issue; it is a question of dialogue between minds who are trying to make a positive contribution to a solution.
Where the issue is purely one of law, or where the tribunal is dealing with certain interlocutory questions, there may be no objection to having a single-member tribunal—perhaps even to deal with hopeless appeals if that expression is taken to mean asking for something which the tribunal has no power to give, but we all remember the research of Professor Kathleen Bell on the question. Moreover, we know that in response to the Green Paper there was a strong preponderance of replies urging the merits of the three-member tribunal.

1175
Incidentally, when my noble friend the Minister replies, perhaps she can tell us what became of the analysis of Professor Roy Sainsbury of the responses to the Green Paper.
Where the proposal for single-member tribunals is combined with abolishing the need for legal qualifications, either in respect of the single member or where the tribunal consists of more than one member in respect of the chairman, our anxieties are exacerbated. I do not suggest that there is no room for different forms of expertise; indeed, quite the reverse. However, the process of sharing a tribunal, construing and applying regulations, drawing out what someone is trying to say and, above all, ensuring that the procedural safeguards necessary to justice are observed is in itself an expertise—an expertise for which medical skills, accountancy skills, counselling skills or personal management skills are no substitute. It is an expertise which is essential to a judicial hearing, and it is an expertise which is more likely to be found among lawyers. That fact was recognised in 1973 and I do not believe that it has subsequently been questioned until now. If my reading of the Bill is accurate, that is to be achieved by regulations under Clause 8(3). It seems from Clause 75 that those regulations are to be subject only to the negative form of parliamentary control. It would be enlightening—it is to be hoped before the Committee stage—if we could see the observations of the scrutiny committee on that proposal.
I have one further matter to raise which I believe to be of fundamental importance. Clause 13 provides for appeals against decisions of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) refers to a wide spectrum of appeals and then provides that,
"nothing in this subsection shall confer a right of appeal in prescribed circumstances".
That appears to mean that, in relation to any appeal in that subsection, the Secretary of State may prescribe circumstances in which the right of appeal shall not apply. Therefore, by regulation, the Secretary of State may deprive any class of person of any right of appeal. I am glad to see that the noble Lord agrees with me. There is a similar provision in relation to other classes of appeal in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I am not suggesting that that power should be subject to stricter parliamentary control. I am suggesting that that power is wholly unsuitable for any form of subordinate legislation. The creation of a jurisdiction, and still more the abolition of a jurisdiction, should be done by primary legislation.
Like most legislation, much of the virtue or the vice lies in the details. When my noble friend accepted governmental office she probably renounced hopes of a quiet life. I think that we can promise her an interesting Committee stage.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, most of the Bill seems to be aimed at carrying out some streamlining of the benefit system to make it more efficient. I welcome those intentions and I hope that they will prove to be effective in practice. In many of the proposed changes
1176
the Government are continuing what the previous Conservative Government had started. At the beginning of the new Parliament, with a change of the political party in office, that is sensible and time saving where non-contentious proposals are involved. I have witnessed and taken part in such shared measures in both Houses at times of change in government over a period of many years. What is unusual in this case is the fact that the Bill contains proposals criticised and opposed by the present Government Front Bench when in opposition which were certainly not non-controversial. Pre-eminent among them is Clause 70 on single parent families.
Lengthy debates took place in the other place, so I will not go over the ground again. However, I must point out that many Labour Members of Parliament and Labour supporters in the country were astonished, disappointed and upset at those proposals. They had reason to be. Opposition spokesmen had appeared to be champions of the opposite policy only months before the general election in May, in particular the present Secretary of State for Social Security who said in the other place on 28th November 1996:
"The way to get lone mothers out of poverty and cut spending benefits for them is not by cutting the amount on which they have to live year by year and plunging them further into poverty".— (Official Report, Commons, 28/11/96: col. 500.)
And in an interview in the Independent on 22nd January 1997, only a year ago, she said categorically that she would not introduce legislation then being considered by the Conservative Government to cut single parents' benefits.
The evident changes of mind, and perhaps of heart, have given rise to much concern about benefits and allowances for the severely disabled members of the British public. Their concern has not been allayed by leaks to the media of changes being considered, including the whole of a letter which the right honourable gentleman Mr. David Blunkett wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a letter which contained, if I may say so respectfully, some very sensible and critical comments and which also outlined what was being suggested within the Government. The leak took place after this Bill had left the other place. On one particular point of the letter I agree totally with Mr. Blunkett, He apparently wrote:
"Where we are strongly opposed to the thrust of DSS's thinking on [disability living allowance] is in the proposal for localisation. If localisation is to mean handing the well-being of disabled people, through DLA, to local authority social services departments it will he a recipe for confusion, impoverishment and inequity".
Well, he felt strongly about that and that was not a "scare story". Indeed, a government press statement today, broadcast on radio, talked about scare stories on this subject. It was a Minister's opinion expressed in the letter and one which I can quite understand.
Within social security programmes I believe that it is the subject of disabled people which is likely to prove most controversial and difficult for the Government. It is the area in which I have most experience. Indeed, I was a member of the small Parliamentary Disablement Group deputation led by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. which had a meeting with the Secretary of State for

1177
Social Security on the day when this House went into Recess: namely, 18th December 1997. I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is to speak later in the debate. I am afraid we received no reassurance or message to allay the apprehensions of severely disabled people from the right honourable lady, Ms Harman. as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, made plain to the media after the meeting. 1 made clear at that meeting, and reiterate again as I have on previous occasions, that 1 am in favour of rationalising the present structure of disability benefits and allowances. I do not criticise, but would encourage the Government to embark on that. However, in the field of disablement it has to be done with the greatest care and discretion and not simply to save money.
The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister suggested in another place yesterday that welfare reform would not be under discussion if there had not been failure in government over the past 20 years. That, of course, was a political sally during Prime Minister's Question Time: one recognises that. But where disablement is concerned, as distinct from other welfare administration with which I am less familiar, it cannot be a serious allegation.
Disabilities are of very different kinds. They cannot all be catered for by a few simple uniform measures. Improvements have continually been made. When I entered the other place 39 years ago there were virtually only two categories of disabled who received official financial help. The first were war disabled, of whom I was one, being partially disabled—I again declare that interest—and, secondly, those disabled due to industrial injury. Other disabled people, however severe their disabilities, and their families, had to depend on what was called national assistance if they were in need. That was seven years before the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, became a Member of Parliament and joined me in the other place.
Since those days the situation of disabled people has been greatly transformed for the better, with the notable help of concerned parliamentarians in all parts of both Houses. But let us remember, in 1959, 10 years after National Insurance and the National Health Service had started, virtually nothing was being done for disabled people except those disabled in war or through industrial injury. Lord Beveridge, in his study and ensuing proposals, concentrated on providing for citizens when they were unemployed or when they were to become unemployed. The national insurance benefits which were then introduced were all associated with employment. Of course Lord Beveridge and his colleagues had the appalling previous unemployment of the 1930s uppermost in their minds.
Since the 1960s the system concerning disabled people has developed in stages. New elements have been introduced from time to time over the years, by Conservative and Labour governments, to meet particular disabilities and circumstances, and they have been welcomed by the recipients and by their carers. Disabilities take many forms and require different measures. However, it is now a more complex system than it need be and it is confusing for the public. For example, some benefits are contributory, some are not.
1178
Some are means tested, others are not. Some are tax free, others are not. The resulting complicated collection of financial help and services is difficult for the public to absorb and for the authorities to monitor and control.
I am in favour of careful consolidation of benefits for disabled people, having myself taken part in the past both as a Minister and as a Member of Parliament in the introduction of some of those benefits designed for particular categories of disabled people. Where disability benefits are being examined I suggest rationalisation and consolidation are the appropriate words so that severely disabled people do not find themselves worse off.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in a debate which has seen so many wise and well informed contributions. It is a particular pleasure for me to speak in the same debate which has seen the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. To use his words, he and I are old sparring partners, he as Minister and Secretary of State at the DHSS and subsequently the DSS and I as a campaigner pressing the cause of carers. I, and indeed carers, had good reason on many an occasion to be grateful to him for his understanding and his commitment to doing what he could, often I think in the face of opposition, to support disabled people and their carers. We now find ourselves on opposite sides of your Lordships' House but I think we may frequently be, as we were in the past, on the same side of the fence.
In the interests of brevity and mindful of the important contribution made by so many well informed Members in this House, I wish to make a contribution on only one part of this Bill; namely, Clause 72, the backdating of benefits, and to draw particular attention to the problems faced by carers who claim invalid care allowance because of the proposed changes. I must first register my opposition and that of Carers National Association, the organisation of which I am chief executive, to the idea of reducing backdating from three months to one month and to remind the House and the Minisfer that the previous change, cutting the period for which one might claim backdating from 12 months to three was brought in with somewhat unseemly haste by the previous government, against the advice of all the groups with whom they had consulted and, most significantly, against the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
We certainly do not dispute the DSS statement that the correct time to claim ICA is when caring begins but most people do not know when caring begins. You become a carer in one of two ways, either it creeps up on you gradually so that it is difficult to identify the point at which you passed from just helping out your mother to becoming the person without whom she cannot manage at all. Or you become a carer suddenly, as the result of your wife having a stroke for example. In this circumstance you are so distressed, so shocked and so confused that even if advice about claiming benefits is offered to you, which usually it is not, you would have great difficulty in taking it in anyway. I Moreover, most people do not readily identify

1179
themselves as carers. "I am a wife, a mother, a son," is what they say and they see what they do, vital contribution though it is, as merely the obligation which arises out of an existing family relationship and has its origins in concepts of love, duty and mutual responsibility. As a consequence they do not realise that a benefit may be available, let alone that they should be quick off the mark in claiming it.
It was therefore very helpful to many carers when they could claim 12 months' back pay when they finally discovered that they were eligible since it enabled them in certain cases to have a small lump sum which helped to cushion the effects of the financial loss which almost invariably follows taking on the caring role. I remind your Lordships that many people give up paid employment to become carers and that taking on caring responsibilities often means—in fact usually means—not only loss of income but also extra costs in the form of heating, laundry, and so on. Lest anyone should be concerned about the excessive amounts of money which back payments might produce for carers, can I remind you not only that carers are estimated to save the nation over £30 billion annually by what they provide freely and willingly, but also that invalid care allowance stands at the princely sum of £37.35 a week, so we are hardly talking golden handshakes here. If anyone is concerned about the figure of 7 million people, I also remind your Lordships that because ICA is so hedged around with restrictions, only about 370,00 people claim it anyway.
There is another important fact about invalid care allowance which is relevant to this debate and to the backdating issue. That is that it is of course dependent on the receipt of another benefit, the DLA care component at the middle or higher rate, or the attendance allowance. It is good to hear from the Government that they have recognised some of the difficulties. I am sure the Minister will be able to assure the House again that delays in paying DLA or attendance allowance will not result in the loss of ICA since it will he backdated to the date of the original claim.
However, there are some practical problems which must be addressed. What happens at present is that both the carer and cared for make their relevant claims. The claim for ICA is processed quickly—and I must record my appreciation of the greatly increased efficiency of the ICA unit in recent years. It has made a huge difference to the efficiency of processing those claims. But the claim from the carer is turned down because the claim of the cared for person has not yet been processed. So far this is not too much of a problem because the claim can be reviewed within three months and if the claim for DLA or AA is then agreed, all is well. However, it is unfortunately the case that many such DLA/AA claims are refused on first application and go to appeal. On appeal, over 50 per cent. are then successful. If the appeal process takes over three months, which it often does, the carer may then have to reclaim and go through the whole process again. This would be irritating enough for anyone, but for a carer often with no time at all, often exhausted, and almost always reluctant to claim the benefit in the first place,
1180
the result is that many feel like Winifred, a carer to whom I spoke yesterday. She said to me, "I couldn't find the energy to go through all those forms again. I know that I'm entitled, but somehow it makes you feel as though you are going cap in hand to ask for something they don't want to give you."
In view of the situations I have outlined, I should like to put three specific and, I hope, simple proposals to the Minister which I believe will find sympathy in this House. The first is that the Department of Social Security should include in the original DLA and AA claim packs a leaflet aimed specifically at carers. Ask any carer what he found most difficult at the start of his caring role and he will say, "Lack of information. Why does no one tell you anything?" Information about benefits is available in many places, but it is not one person's responsibility to give the carers the information needed; and most of the 20,000 or so people who contact annually our carers line at Carers National Association have never realised that they may be eligible.
The second proposal is that all claims for ICA should be kept open and able to be reassessed when DLA or AA is finally decided, whether that takes one month or 10. I submit that no carer should be expected to have to go through that process twice.
The third proposal is that the DSS should run a take up campaign encouraging carers to apply for invalid care allowance. Though the benefit itself is far too low—I remind noble Lords that it is £37.35 a week; and I shall continue to press in this House and any other appropriate forum for an increase—it is nonetheless of great importance to carers and may in some cases make the difference between a family being willing to take on the caring task and not being able to contemplate it. I am sure that this House needs no reminding of how dependent our nation is for the provision of community care on the vital contribution of carers.
I very much hope that the Minister will he able to offer a positive response to the suggestions. They will not wipe away the distress that many carers feel about the proposed changes to the backdating, but it may show that the Government are concerned not to increase that distress.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I wish to begin with a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, on his maiden speech. He is an old sparring partner from another place. I thought he made a smashing speech, very finely tuned to this House. We look forward to hearing from him on other controversial occasions, when more at home battling against each other on the many issues we have in common.
I wish also to say what a pleasure it is to follow my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. She and I worked for carers. My contribution was very modest. The noble Baroness's contribution to carers is well known throughout the land. I greatly enjoyed her speech.

1181
I am tempted to follow the splendid remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about disability. I do not propose to do so because I do not believe that disability comes within the strict confines of the parts of the Bill on which I wish to concentrate.
All three parts of the Bill involve matters of interest and concern to noble Lords. They were explained succinctly by my noble friend Lady Hollis, someone whom I greatly admire and for whom I have great respect despite what I am about to say. I wish to speak about Part III and the changes to benefit rules.
The provision in Clause 70 enabling the Government, through regulations, to end the higher rate for one parent families is a measure conceived by a Tory Government. It is being implemented by a Labour Government and it is aimed at cutting the benefits of people who are poor. That should be rejected out of hand. This Government have many splendid policies to their credit but this is not one of them.
In the Second Reading debate in another place, the Secretary of State said,
"It is important that we listen to what is being said by Gingerbread and the National Council for One Parent Families".—(Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 788.)
Both those organisations have condemned these proposed cuts. The National Council for One Parent Families states unambiguously that it is "vital" to retain the lone parent rate of child benefit. We cannot misunderstand that message. That is what it said. There is no point in making a song and dance about listening to organisations and then completely ignoring their views—in fact, doing the opposite.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that she spoke with sorrow on some aspects of the Bill. That is not for me. I speak with real anger, never mind being sorry, my Lords. The Government are pushing through this Bill which will hit very vulnerable people. There is no doubt about that. There is no point in being sorry; we should he really angry. They are continually claiming that they have to make some tough decisions. What a shame that Ministers have to make these tough decisions. But hitting at one parent families is the opposite of being tough. It is easy, it is simple. Any fool can do that kind of thing. Those people are among the weakest and the most vulnerable of all. It is the one parent families which have to make the tough decisions as to whether to keep the children fed, clothed or warm. That is what I call tough. And for this Government to make it tougher still by taking a crucial £6 plus other passport benefits from them is simply callous. There is no other word for it. It is a calculated policy. It is callous.
If the Government are short of petty cash—and we are talking about petty cash—they should focus on millionaires, top tax earners, racketeers, bookmakers, pop stars, landowners, and landlords. The list is endless. There are bags of easy targets which they could not miss even if they were blind and had a blunderbuss. Any move in that direction, tackling the really tough guys, would have the outstanding merit of leaving the one parent families in possession of the pathetic £6 extra instead of making them desolate without it. So why are the Government putting forward these proposals?
1182
Ministers justify their U-turn on lone parents by highlighting the welfare to work proposals. In principle they are welcome. Expenditure and incentives to help people back to work are splendid. But Ministers should not pretend that these proposed child benefit cuts would help lone parents into jobs under the welfare to work scheme. When the Secretary of State was challenged by Audrey Wise during the Second Reading debate in the other place to explain the reasoning behind the move—Clause 68 as it then was—the Minister spoke of welfare to work and providing opportunities for one-parent families to work.
The idea is fine; the only trouble is, it is nonsense. The provision in the Bill—as anyone who has read it will realise, and the Secretary of State ought to have read her own Bill—is a disincentive to work. The cut in child benefit will apply only to single-parent families in work. Those on income support have child benefit, whatever its level, deducted pound for pound. So most do not even bother to claim it. Even the Secretary of State herself declined to justify the cut on any rational basis.
Do the Government genuinely believe in even-handed treatment between one-parent and two-parent families, even though their formal view to the Social Security Advisory Committee is that the evidence is "inconclusive"? If so, it may mean that Ministers suffer from myopia. Most of us see clear and obvious differences between the lifestyles of the two types of family. In every area, in every setting, and by every measure, lone-parent families are below two-parent families. That is obvious.
The Government should listen to some of the evidence provided by lone-parent organisations. They should also ponder the call of the SSAC for a wider review before adopting changes that will affect the lives of over 2 million children in lone-parent families.
The Government's excuse that existing claimants are protected and that the measure applies only to new claimants—the point referred to by my noble friend in her answer to me at Question Time—is a feeble one. Of course the benefit of existing claimants should not be cut. But applying the cut to new claimants is a means of dampening down any outcry. Such an outcry is inevitably reduced if the current benefits of existing lone parents are preserved. But a policy change should be judged on its merits—is it a good policy or a had one? That should be the test. Those who are to become lone parents are just as important, just as valuable, as existing lone parents. The Government should be considering new lone parents as well as existing ones.
If the welfare to work programme is successful—as I hope it will be—there will be lone parents moving from benefit to jobs. Should those jobs fail, and they have to return to income support, presumably they will face the new lower rate of family premium. I say "presumably" because my noble friend the Minister has rather muddied the waters today. We look forward to her explaining with her usual clarity when she replies whether we are right in reading the briefs in this way. Will lone parents return to a lower rate of family premium if matters go wrong?

1183
If that is the case, what is the message coming loud and clear from the Government? It is that life is becoming more risky. You have to avoid becoming a new claimant, either of child benefit or income support. Moving in or out of work could be damaging. If you are on income support it is best to stay on it, unless you are very sure of a well-paid, secure job one that gives you a £50 net gain, not the £50 gross gain quoted so frequently by Government Ministers. Is that the message that the Government really want to give? I really cannot believe it.
The plain and simple fact is that there is no justification for this proposed cut in benefit. The Minister has heard a wide variety of people saying, "We beg you to do this. We urge you to do that. We ask you, rationally and reasonably, please consider the issue". The noble Baroness is a fine Minister. All those requests have been put in the other place. All the reasons for not going ahead with the cut have been put forward. But despite the views of the so-called rebels, the Government bulldozed the cut through.
The House of Lords is now faced with the possibility of doing something about it. We cannot vote now, but I hope we shall have the opportunity later on. This measure will damage families; it will damage work incentives; it will damage the Government; and it will damage a society that permits it. I urge the Government to think again.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, to whom I listened with great interest and respect, my feelings tend towards the "anger" rather than the "sorrow" end of the spectrum. The particular experience that I bring to the debate, unlike other noble Lords, is not that of a social security specialist but of a local councillor in the fourth most deprived borough in the country—Islington. That statistic sometimes evokes surprise because of Islington's image as the home of yuppies consuming "shaved parmesan and rocket" lunches. But it comes from the Government's index of local conditions measuring socio-economic deprivation.
I am therefore contacted by many people with benefit problems. Often in my ward surgery they are in tears of frustration and despair. I often find myself acting as an advocate for them in trying to get some sense out of the council or the Benefits Agency. I have found that it is an immense help to be pushy, articulate, educated and middle-class, which, often, my constituents, though intelligent, are not. I marvel at times at the courage and persistence displayed by those who keep going even though "dumped on" by the system. It is far from user-friendly.
That is why this Bill is misconceived. As a Liberal Democrat, I support sensible reform of the welfare state, and the broad objectives of welfare to work. There should of course be firm action to prevent and punish benefit fraud although a little more even-handedness in the publicity and rhetoric as between benefit fraud and the vastly more costly tax evasion would be welcome.
1184
We heard today from the Minister how there is less benefit fraud in relation to disability than is popularly supposed. I should have expected the top priority of a Labour Government to be the introduction of management and administrative changes to ensure that claimants receive the money to which they are entitled and are treated with maximum dignity and respect. It is often people who are physically or mentally ill, or feeling demoralised or defeated, who are the clients of the DSS and the council housing benefits sections. They are less able to cope with the hassle, delay and incompetence of what is an excessively complicated and form-laden system, as indeed the Minister remarked.
As an illustration, I could show any noble Lord who is interested and who is not familiar with such a document, a seven-page computer-generated letter of notification of housing and council tax benefit. I cannot understand it myself; perhaps other noble Lords are more intelligent.
What the new Labour Government have done is to take over lock, stock and barrel a Conservative Bill. The Official Opposition have at last carried through the logic of that by announcing that they will not oppose the Government on their social security measures. That leaves these Benches opposing those aspects of the Bill which unfairly load the dice against honest and struggling benefit claimants and in favour of the Treasury.
I find it—and here my anger shows—truly obscene that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society should be made the fall guys for new Labour and Treasury machismo. I use that word deliberately because there is a distinct whiff of playing the gender card against poor women and children when rich men seem to be immune to onslaught.
It was Robert Peston in the Financial Times who referred to the "boys at the Treasury", a department he described as,
"the last bastion of unreconstructed male dominance",
in which the Chancellor "shows a testosterone preference". I cannot comment. They are not my words. But many women and children will be the victims of this apparent virility test. Married women voters will be watching with interest—they will be especially watching women MPs and Ministers—to see whether the heralded working family tax credit means loss of independent taxation for women under a Labour Government.
It has also come to a sorry pass when a Labour Government would rather risk weakening the attachment of the middle classes to the welfare state through taxing child benefit and abolishing the universal state pension than risk alienating those earning over £100,000 a year by a 50 per cent. top tax rate. I was interested to read an Observer report that the City chief advising the Government on tax and benefit reform had an 18 per cent. pay rise last year to £936,000. on which a top rate of 40 per cent. was payable.
Instead of measures designed to achieve efficiency, fairness and dignity, we are presented with a Bill designed purely to make savings for the Treasury when there is no budgetary need. That has been brought out in the remarks of other noble Lords. The ways chosen are not only mean and counter-productive in penalising directly the poorest and most vulnerable, such as the lone parent benefit cuts;

1185
they are also sneaky and unfair in the provisions on appeals. test cases and backdating. It would surely have been better to scrap this inadequate and dishonourable Bill and address the wholesale reform of the system of social security in conjunction with reform of its structure, for which we await the Green Paper. I am not quite sure how the Bill fits the Prime Minster's ambition, quoted in the press today and I think to be discussed tonight, for long-term, thought-out principled reform.
There are likely to he matters of policy reform where Liberal Democrats support the Government if genuinely designed to facilitate opportunity, self-reliance and independence. But for this Bill standing alone there is hardly a good word to be said. The measure not only does nothing to tackle the poverty trap. the most urgent of the welfare system problems, although that is perhaps understandable as we await the Green Paper, but it also reinforces two other traps which could be called the "risk trap" and the "bureaucracy trap".
I take the example of Miss J, a single parent who was anxious to come off benefit. After reading a leaflet entitled Help for single mothers to get back to work, she decided to take a two-week job trial she had been offered. On 23rd March last year she completed in her benefits agency office a form for housing benefit extension which eases the transition by continuing to pay housing benefit for eight weeks. The next development, however, was that she received a notice from the council saying that £600 was owing on her rent account. She discovered that the form had gone astray between the Benefits Agency and the council's housing benefit section. The council told her to contact the Benefits Agency—not offering to do it themselves—so I can at least say a good word for the Government's proposals for a one-stop shop. Miss J rang the Benefits Agency which confirmed that it had sent the first form. The council still refused to acknowledge the fact. Miss J filled out a second form, also mislaid. Eventually in June, the council accepted that it had received a third form completed by Miss J. But guess what? After writing several letters and spending hours on the phone, she is rewarded with the notification that her application, on the third copy of the form, is out of time.
The Benefits Agency is unable to provide any proof from its records—that is to say its computers—that she filled out the original form in March. I have this personally from the manager of the Benefits Agency. So Miss J now faces court proceedings for eviction. That is an example of the "bureaucracy trap".
It is hardly surprising that this enterprising and efficient young woman, who is very well organised in her paper work, feels that it was hardly worth trying to get off benefit. None of the saga was her fault, but she has ended up with £600 rent arrears which she did not have before. If, in future, she needs to re-apply for lone parent supplement she thinks she would not get it. We await clarification from the Minister. That is what I mean by the "risk trap".
We are told that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister see their reforms as a way to direct benefits to the people who need them most. That will be the message of the Prime Minister's welfare roadshows, starting tonight. But it makes various provisions in the Bill even
1186
more difficult to understand. How will a one-month cut-off for benefit claims, including widow's benefits, help the poorest? How would a one-month cut-off be compatible with a government take-up campaign for poor pensioners to claim income support which the Prime Minister hinted at in press reports?
Is a widow's first thought in the four weeks after bereavement a visit to the DSS office? Is a person struggling with severe clinical depression and the likely havoc it has caused in his working and personal life to be caught out by a failure to claim housing benefit within one month? Will the eviction notice that follows help his recovery or send him into fatal despair'? I apologise for being absent from the debate for a while. I was attending the newly formed All-Party Group on Mental Health. The Minister in the Department of Health, Mr. Paul Boateng. talked about the Government's genuinely sincere commitment to mental health. I asked how that squared with the one-month cut-off. His answer was that we should all help people fill out the forms. I hope I do not parody it. He seemed to think that we live in a more perfect world than we do, where officials are efficient.
I move on to the changes in the appeals process. They will also undermine the stated ambition of directing help to the most needy. The reduction in independence of appeals tribunals, the removal of the obligation on them to have a legally qualified chair and to investigate other matters than the strict case before them, as well as the Secretary of State's power to suspend appeals, may well disadvantage the claimant.
At the end of the seven-page housing benefit letter which I mentioned earlier, the applicants are invited to make contact if they think their benefits have been incorrectly assessed. Is it either realistic or fair to expect a claimant to be able to identify the clause in the regulations that has been misconstrued and put it in writing, knowing that the letter will define the scope of the tribunal's inquiries? I suggest that it is neither fair nor realistic unless we expect claimants to hire the services of top silks. Today's National Audit Office report says that one in five of the Benefits Agency assessments is inaccurate. So there are likely to be many claimants who lose out.
Finally, why should the Government, in the Bill's provisions on errors and test cases, seek to limit the scope of the correction of injustices, if not to cheat people out of their rights? Does the state in this country regard its poorer residents as enemies against whom massively high defences have to be built or as citizens who deserve respect and fair treatment?
I believe the objections to the Bill which have been voiced on all sides of the House deserve real answers and not platitudes. I hope we will get those answers. In particular, I ask the Minister to address the issue of backdating in cases of mental health. She referred the other day in a reply to "joined up policy". Perhaps I may ask whether she will consult her colleagues in the Department of Health to see whether there is a contradiction in the Government's policy between helping people with mental health problems and the backdating provisions in the Bill.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hollis mounted a persuasive defence of the contents of the Bill and I would not have expected less from her. Like most political stars she combines clear and effective oratory with considerable Thespian talent. She presented her case so well that at first I thought I would be kinder to the Bill than I had originally intended. However, since then I have listened to all the other speakers and come hack to my original critical position.
It is interesting to notice that of all the speakers so far, every single one from the Government Back Benches and those from the constructive Opposition have been highly critical of the Bill. The only support has come from the Official Opposition, which is not surprising since they originally drafted it. As with the Education (Student Loans) Bill, I remain unhappy that my Government are introducing this Bill a long time before the publication of the Green Paper which will review the whole of the welfare system.
My noble friend said that the Bill is part of the welfare-to-work programme. But, as noble Lords have already shown—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Campbell of Croy, from the Opposition Benches—the reality is that it is a cost-cutting and streamlining package largely drawn up by the previous government. As such, it is part of that self-punitive commitment that we made to continue the previous government's spending plans, luckily now for only another 16 months, eight months having passed. We are persevering with it, despite the virtual certainty that if the previous government had retained power they would by now have changed those plans in the current rather better economic climate (though they would probably have retained this specific measure and further cut income tax, which at least we are not doing).
Some of the measures in the Bill qualify as the "tough choices", mentioned by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister from time to time. It is sad that some of the consequences of these tough choices will fall upon those who have little or no choice—lone parents and their children, many of whom, as my noble friend knows well, are living on the edge of poverty, so well described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Ludford, as well as my noble friend Lady Kennedy.
My noble friend Lady Hollis may well say that single parents have a choice of going to work. Fine, if the work is available, sufficiently well paid to cover all the benefits that will be lost, and where adequate childcare is available and affordable, disregard or not. I completely agree that for mothers of young children, going out to work, preferably part-time initially, can be beneficial not only financially but also as a relief from the sometimes solitary and onerous job of childcare. Both mother and child (and society as a whole) benefit, particularly if the childcare can include proper nursery education.
My noble friend would probably say that the single parent New Deal schemes, including childcare, will be up and running by the time the effects of this Bill begin to be felt. I hope that that is so. But would it not be better to wait until they are up and running before
1188
introducing this Bill, if it has to be introduced at all? Can she say whether jobs or training places will be available in all parts of the country and whether sufficient public transport will always be available? There are many housing estates in the country where those facilities are not available, particularly jobs which would be well enough paid to make it worth while for a single parent, especially one with more than one child, to exchange her benefits for wages from which transport and at least part of her childcare costs have to be met.
In the post office in Kentish Town last week I met three of my former patients who were waiting in the queue for benefits. One was a single mother with three children of school age whose partner had recently left (to her relief in that case). She is a former telephonist of good intelligence and therefore could obtain a reasonable salary. But she said that it was not worth going back to work because her salary would be little greater than the benefits she would lose. She would be even less likely to go back to work if she knew that her single parent family premium would be cut if she subsequently returned to welfare for any reason—that was a regulation which we passed before Christmas almost without noticing it.
My main sadness about the Bill is that it goes in the wrong direction. It does nothing to start the uphill and necessary task of reversing the unacceptable inequity of income distribution in Britain, so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. If anything, it will make matters slightly worse. This Bill will not help single mothers on benefit to find work. Other measures—for example, the new deal for single parents mentioned by my noble friend—will do that and the minimum wage, when it becomes law, will be a great help if it is set at a level which makes work rather than welfare attractive.
However, most of those measures are on the "supply side". They will, one hopes, improve the qualifications and incentives of the workforce but will do little to create employment. If lone parents and partially disabled people are to be attracted back to work—the great majority want to work—the jobs must be there. The Government are depending on the present moderate growth in the economy to provide them. I suggest that that is not enough. particularly as we may see a downturn in the economy relatively soon, perhaps when the waves of the crisis in South-East Asia start to reach Europe.
Any new deal should have some of the features of that famous original New Deal in the Tennessee Valley 60 years ago, which kick-started the world's climb back into prosperity after the depression of the early 1930s. There are some areas of the country where much greater government assistance is required to create the employment opportunities which are needed to encourage people to move from welfare to work. In that regard I should like to read from an article by Will Hutton, the editor of the Observer, in his newspaper of 21st December when he said:
"It is not moral fecklessness and high marginal tax rates that arc generating worklessness in places such as Merseyside, Strathclyde and Tyneside. It is that the local economy has disintegrated—there

1189
is no work. Poverty in those areas is not caused by the welfare state: rather it is the inadequacy of the welfare state that is causing poverty".
This Bill will tend to make matters worse rather than better. However, I was delighted to read in this morning's Guardian that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to mount a serious attack on poverty. But I was disappointed that there was no mention of more resources being allocated to job creation. I applaud the Government's intention to reduce the welfare bill by getting people back to work; but to achieve that, macro-economic policies must be applied to create the incentives for industry to invest and create the adequately paid jobs which will attract those receiving social security benefits to leave their poorly paid but at least safe welfare havens.
It has to be said that of the £90 billion spent on social security—it is a huge sum—it is actually a smaller proportion of our GNP than the social security budgets of most other industrial nations other than the United States. Again, the Hutton article said:
"Nor is social spending high and out of control … The total budget only represents some 13 per cent. of GDP, well below comparable spending elsewhere";
for instance, Italy 20 per cent., France 22 per cent., Germany 18 per cent. and Canada 16 per cent. Of comparable countries, only the United States and Japan spend as low a proportion on welfare as Britain. The way to reduce the size of the welfare budget is to achieve high levels of employment and not by nibbling at the edges of the welfare bill, as this parliamentary Bill. inherited from the party opposite, tries to do.
7 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, like other noble Lords on this side of the House, I welcome the intent behind the Bill to continue efforts made over recent years to tackle welfare dependency. It is the impact on trying to tackle the culture of welfare dependency that is as important as any of the financial consequences of the issue.
There has been a dispute in some of the discussion about whether or not the policies in the Bill are in line with the policies put forward in the manifesto, so I should like to start by referring back to the manifesto. It stated clearly:
"To ensure that taxpayers are willing to go on paying for our social security system, we need a social security system that we can afford. We will do this by focusing benefits on those most in need and helping people off welfare into work".
The manifesto went on to say:
"We will always help those in genuine need. In return, the unemployed will have a responsibility to look for work and accept a reasonable offer. We will ensure that no one can refuse reasonable work opportunities and remain on benefit".
It promised:
"We will give special help to lone parents who want to work and assist with childcare in work".
Those were, of course, policies from the Conservative Party manifesto, and I stand behind those policies and support them. I welcome the Labour Party's conversion to those principles. But intent is not enough. What is
1190
important is how one goes about it. I want to raise two points about how the Government are approaching the task.
The first is a general point and one of principle. The noble Baroness said that any set of reforms on benefits needs to be considered within the context of other government policies. Welfare reform cannot stand alone without also addressing the issue of how to replace welfare support by encouraging support from stronger families, families that are helped to become more self sufficient.
Thirty years ago, when welfare spending was a fraction of what it is today, there were many cases of hardship. However, on the whole, those people now dependent on welfare were not, by and large, roaming the streets. The reason was that the family network was much stronger. There were ties to help and support. People had somewhere to turn. We cannot hope to turn back the clock, at least in a short period of time. But there are practical steps that can and should be taken to try to encourage that network of support as a replacement for the welfare dependency culture.
The same Conservative Party manifesto I quoted earlier had a number of policies to support families that I would urge the Government to look at. Perhaps I may give two examples that I think are worthy of consideration. The first is a proposal for transferable tax allowances within families to provide additional support to families where one partner is not working because of carer responsibilities. At the moment, when one partner is not working, the tax allowance is lost. It would be a relatively simple change in tax law to allow that tax allowance to be transferred to the other partner.
A second practical step that can be taken to support care within the family which was in the Conservative Party manifesto was the respite care policy to provide support to carers who desperately need a break and at the moment go on for years without the ability to have a break from their families. This was proposed in response to a number of representations from carer organisations. There are a number of things that can be done that will not turn back the clock 30 years but will help to strengthen family networks which have to be there if we are trying to wean people away from state dependency. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider those points as part of the context of welfare reform.
My second point is one of detail, but it is in a policy area where detail is often critically important to ensure that the weakest and most vulnerable are not unintentionally damaged by the way proposals are enacted. It expands on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The Bill contains provisions to reduce backdating of benefits to one month. The proposals from the last Government to reduce backdating of benefit from 12 months to three months left an exemption for housing benefit, which remained at 12 months. There was a good reason for that exemption. If the old or vulnerable are taken off housing benefit, it may take several months before they realise that the landlord is not getting the money. The money is typically paid direct to the landlord. It may then take

1191
several more months before housing benefit is reinstated. Yet the law allows landlords to evict tenants in assured shorthold tenancies if rent is not paid for two months. So the effect of the Government's proposals could lead to many old people being evicted and needing rehousing.
I wish to illustrate this point with two examples which have been given to me by an advice worker from the citizens' advice bureaux. He states:
"I recently dealt with a case whereby a woman aged 95 was discharged from hospital following a stay of 5 months. She didn't have anyone to look after her affairs and her housing and council tax benefit ceased 6 weeks after she entered hospital, when her income support was withdrawn. However the current rules allowed me to apply for the backdating of the missing benefits on her behalf and she was awarded £1,760.00 in backdated benefit".
That money was used to clear her rent arrears. However, it would not be there if the backdating was limited to one month.
He goes on to mention a second case. He states:
"An 85 year old woman living alone and suffering dementia, (not surprisingly) failed to complete and return her annual housing benefit review form. As a consequence the department withdrew her benefit and ceased benefits to her landlord. During the intervening seven months between then and now, arrears of rent amounting to £1,600 have accrued. The landlords were about to begin possession proceedings but have accepted my assurances that the arrears will he cleared because on the grounds of 'good cause' …she can apply for her benefit to be backdated for up to a maximum of 52 weeks … It must be pointed out that had the client been evicted, the local authority would have been responsible for providing another home for her, as a vulnerable older person, and the public purse would have to bear the cost".
That is in addition to the mental anguish caused to someone put in that position.
The letter concludes:
"The two examples … are not unusual or exceptional cases"—
many of those who have spoken in the debate could confirm that—
"In fact I receive such referrals on a fairly regular basis".
I should like to ask the Minister to clarify, either now or subsequently, whether the Bill as drafted would prevent backdating of housing benefit in these and similar cases beyond the one month; and, if so, whether the Government would accept an amendment to allow discretion to retain the current 12 month backdating in these and similar circumstances.
As in many of the areas other noble Lords have raised, it is the detail that matters. The Government will ultimately be judged not by their intent but by the way in which they deliver. I hope that many of the points raised in the debate will be picked up and taken on board by the Government.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the first part of the Bill has the admirable objective of overhauling the decision-making and appeal processes right across the social security field. It seems to me that clauses in the Bill designed to reduce the number of separate decision-makers and to eliminate the need for claimants to submit the same information over and over again to
1192
different bodies or parts of the system and those parts of the Bill which enable officials and appeal tribunals to correct their own errors are all welcome.
So, too, and slightly more cautiously, is the reduction of five separate appeal jurisdictions to one and the recognition of the flexibility of tribunal composition, which can assist in reducing the shocking delays that can now occur before appeals are resolved. I say that with a little more caution than my first compliment on the objective of the first part of the Bill because Clause 8 allows one or two-member tribunals to be appointed as an alternative to the traditional three-person tribunals. While I do not disagree in principle with the new flexibility, it is a significant change and deserves to be examined very closely indeed. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not here at the present moment. He asked about one-person judicial bodies. There are stipendiary magistrates, circuit judges and High Court judges sitting alone besides a number of single decision-makers of that kind.
But in the tribunal field the three-person tribunal has been standard and a well-regarded feature of administrative justice since unemployment insurance was introduced by Lloyd George in 1911. That model was widely approved. It was followed by the Attlee Government in 1946, when a more comprehensive system of social insurance was introduced. It involves shared decision-making, which has a lot of merit. In recent years it has invariably included a legally qualified chairman. We worked up to that, as it were, over the years. I believe that most people find that beneficial.
I accept that not all cases require a three-person appeal tribunal. During the Committee stage of this Bill in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Bradley, seemed to have a little difficulty in providing suitable examples as to when a one-person tribunal would be suitable. He referred to whether a person qualified for benefit. He gave the example of when an appeal simply concerns the amount of the benefit. That can be of some significance, but, nonetheless, that was an example that he gave.
The difficulty is that a case which may at the outset appear to be relatively straightforward and be sent to a one-person tribunal may turn out to be more complex when the one-member tribunal is listening to the case. I trust that the aim of flexibility which the Government in both Houses have emphasised for this Bill can be brought to bear in the circumstances by way of a rapid assignment of other members to the particular tribunal if that kind of situation arises.
Forty years ago tribunals were brought in out of the cold. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, who is chairman of the Council on Tribunals, will forgive me. The tribunals were brought in out of the cold and made part of the judicial system by the same legislation in 1958 that set up the Council on Tribunals. Following the report of the Franks Committee of the previous year, they were no longer to be merely adjuncts of government departments. The stature of tribunals was emphasised; the role of the Lord Chancellor was meant to give not just greater

1193
dignity, but greater appreciation that they were to follow the principles of fairness, openness and impartiality which were seen as the vital guiding principles.
I mention that kind of history because of the well-earned and increasing respect for tribunals that has grown up in the past 40 years, leaving aside delays for the moment. That owes a lot to the devoted and largely unsung work of the members, which include at any rate two Members of your Lordships' House speaking this afternoon. I hope that the changes which are being suggested will not in any way put in jeopardy that greater regard which tribunals have received in recent years. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that three-person tribunals will continue to be the norm and departed from sparingly and only where clearly justified.
We all want more efficiency in decision-making. There is no necessary dissonance between efficiency and the interests of justice. I suggest something which has not been mentioned this afternoon. If we want more efficiency in reducing delays, which have undoubtedly marred the tribunal process, what about the fairly obvious conclusion of appointing more people to tribunal panels? If the word "expense" comes to mind, I am not talking here about the expensive appointment of full-time, pensionable judges but of part-time tribunal members paid only for the time they sit. I am sure the Minister will agree that they are people who at the moment give extremely good value for money.
The most controversial clause in the Bill is what is now Clause 70. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for referring to it because that has been done many times. I wish to say one or two things about it. It is the clause which enables regulations to be made for the reduction of child benefit to lone parents and in effect lone parents in paid work of some kind.
The Secretary of State, in response to the lengthy debate on this clause in another place on 10th December, explained that, while single parents in work or new claimants will no longer receive a lone-parent premium, they will instead receive the benefit of affordable childcare and will still obtain family credit. She said that these items will more than compensate for the loss of £6 a week or thereabouts on child benefit. However, she admitted (Hansard, col. 1088.) that only "some" lone parents will receive more benefit help in work than they currently receive.
I believe that it would be a broad generalisation, which I am prepared to risk, that every single Labour Member of Parliament in the other place is a strong supporter of the New Deal, the welfare-to-work programme, whether it is applicable to young, unemployed or single parents who are able and willing to do paid work full or part-time. Why then was the loyalty of so many Labour MPs—not just those who voted in a certain Lobby, but many more—so sorely tested on 10th December?
I believe that that was principally for two reasons. The first is a matter of which we may get further clarification from my noble friend the Minister this evening. That was the understanding that, if a lone parent on income support obtains a job but loses it and
1194
goes back on income support, because of the preceding abolition by statutory instrument of the lone parent premium on income support, she would receive less benefit for her child than she would at present. Many Labour MPs said and wondered how that could be an incentive for her to seek a job, particularly if it was part-time or seasonal, in the first place.
The second and broader reason why the loyalty of so many Labour MPs was tested on 10th December was the failure on the part of Ministers to communicate effectively government policy in respect of those who were unable to work because of age, disablement or parenthood. I pick up something that was emphasised earlier today by a number of speakers, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy; namely, the parents of very young children.
Parliament is being asked to contemplate reductions in benefit to people who may well be in need—I put it no higher than that—before Parliament can be satisfied as to the effectiveness of the welfare-to-work programme and before it knows what is to happen to those who fall outside the programme.
I very much welcome the Prime Minister's words in today's Times. I quote just one sentence:
"To many people benefits are a lifeline and work is not an option".
Recognition of that is exceedingly important.
When Ministers contemplate Clause 70 and the other so-called "hard choices", I commend to them the words of the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Mr. Clive Soley, someone who in the weeks just before and after Christmas has been in the midst of the concern, puzzlement and anguish of so many Labour MPs. Writing in the New Statesman just before Christmas, Mr. Soley said—he had loyally gone through the Lobby to support the Government in the vote on 10th December:
"Whenever we apply the welfare-to-work policy we need to think through the needs of those who cannot benefit from it. Incorporating tax and benefits should be a key part of the strategy. as it enables us to claw back the universal benefits that go to higher income groups".
It seems to me that the Government have not yet given their supporters, let alone the general public, a coherent picture of how the provisions in this Bill—or some of them—and other particular proposals to reduce benefits fit into the larger canvas of modernising the welfare state and furthering the cause of social justice.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, at the outset I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, on his maiden speech. I do so particularly because we were both elected to the other place in February 1974 and I crossed swords with him on many occasions on many issues over the years. In the past three years of the old Parliament I worked closely with the noble Lord on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and I got to know him very well indeed. I admired him for his hard work and dedication to his difficult task as Leader of the House

1195
of Commons. I am sure that noble Lords will benefit from his speeches and knowledge for many years to come.
Eighty-five per cent. of the Bill can be described as highly technical. The thrust of its technical changes is to seek to improve the social security system. Any improvement in the social security system is certainly welcome to me. but it would be even more welcome to the millions of people who have to claim benefits from the system. Many claimants who have to tangle with the system often have appalling experiences. When one makes a claim, one has to complete long, obscure and complex forms. Indeed, as a Member of Parliament I used to believe that many of the forms had been drawn up by experts in obfuscation and that their objective was to confuse the individual so that he or she could never submit an absolutely accurate claim. A regular feature of many of my surgeries was a poor, bewildered soul walking in, clutching the forms and asking me to help to fill them in.
Mistakes are often made in the assessments, resulting in appeals. The appeals procedures can be inordinately lengthy and it can often take more than 12 months for a claim to be resolved. Too often, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. Indeed, the DSS staff are often confused about the system, to say nothing of the poor, inarticulate claimants who can often be crushed by it.
This is a lengthy Bill. It contains 77 clauses and seven schedules. I am sure the House will appreciate the fact that I do not intend to speak this evening to all 77 clauses! Indeed, I shall address my remarks to only two clauses, which are in no way technical but which are highly political. It is the first of those two clauses that gives me the first of my two problems with the Bill. My first problem is, of course, that this is a Tory Bill. There is no doubt that if the Tories had won the election they would have introduced this Bill. Indeed, Mr. lain Duncan Smith, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in another place, dubbed it "the Peter Lilley Memorial Bill". If the Tories had introduced this Bill, I am sure that one or two more Labour Members of another place and of this House, including myself, would have bitterly opposed Clause 70.
My second problem is why we have this Bill at all. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security have all proclaimed their absolute determination to reform the welfare state. Indeed, the Prime Minister is launching a country-wide tour to rally the country behind his determination to reform the benefits system and the welfare state. They have regularly proclaimed how the system is not working properly despite consuming billions of pounds of taxpayers' money. They have said that it does not provide proper support for the poorest and most deserving cases. They have pointed out that the more affluent receive benefits which, frankly, they do not really need. Anyone with any knowledge of the social security system would be in total agreement with those statements.
For quite some time we have been promised a no-holds-barred Green Paper. That was promised many months ago by the Minister for Welfare Reform.
1196
I understand that when he was appointed, he was charged with thinking the unthinkable. However, we are still waiting for that Green Paper. Surely we should have had the Green Paper first, followed by consultation and discussion, of which the Prime Minister's tour would have been a leading aspect. Instead, we now have this Social Security Bill which may subsequently have to be changed following the consultation. Surely that is a strange way to proceed. I must advise my noble friend on the Front Bench, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, that I believe that we have adopted an odd approach. It appears that we have alarmed, if not terrified, almost every benefit claimant in the country right at the outset—and the debate has not yet started.
The real purpose of two or three clauses of this Bill is to cut public expenditure. That leads me straight to Clause 70, which will remove the extra £6 per week benefit that a new claimant lone parent receives for the first child. The official reason given for that unpleasant action is, we are told, to get those lone parents (mainly women) back into employment. There is, of course, the rather difficult task of finding a few hundred thousand jobs.
On Monday, I received an Answer to a Written Question about the number of individuals in the United Kingdom in receipt of the lone parent premium element of child benefit. The Answer was that an estimated 1.1 million families in the United Kingdom currently receive the lone parent element of child benefit. When one considers the programmes to get the under-25s and the long-term unemployed back into work—all of which I applaud wholeheartedly—one must ask oneself where the jobs will come from. Speaking only for my own part of the country, I can assure my noble friend that there are not many jobs available—at least, I have not noticed many jobs on Merseyside in the past 18 or 19 years.
Even if the jobs were available—I do not know where they are—the most significant question remains. I refer to the morality of inducing or, dare one say it, coercing a mother with small children to go out to work and leave her children in the care of someone else.
I have some personal knowledge of what it means to be part of a one-parent family. When my mother was young my father went out to work one morning and never returned. He was killed in a mining accident. My mother was left with three children under seven years of age, of whom I was the eldest at six-and-a-half. Putting on one side the abject poverty into which we were immediately pitched, the impact I recall most vividly was that for a number of years I and my two sisters would never let our mother out of our sight. We would not even stop with loving relatives who wanted us to stay with them to give my mother a break. I suspect that many small children whose homes are broken up in this way suffer similar trauma. If one parent suddenly disappears without any explanation or the child having any understanding of it, he or she will be bewildered for many years to come.
The Secretary of State insists that only new claimants will lose the £6 extra benefit. There is a tendency for some to talk in terms of feckless young single women who have children out of wedlock. Perhaps that may

1197
happen in some cases. However, the new claimants will include women who have been suddenly widowed, like my mother, and women—almost always it will be women—who have been deserted by husbands or partners. I believe that they would include those who had had the £6, obtained a job and forfeited the benefit. lost the job for whatever reason and were subsequently reclassified as new claimants and thus refused the extra benefit. Almost every other noble Lord who has spoken so far appears to be as confused as I am. I hope that my noble friend will clear this up once and for all. As far as I am aware, everyone who has considered this Bill suffers from the same delusion.
Six months have elapsed since this Bill received its Second Reading in the Commons. In the other place there was a substantial revolt of Labour Back-Benchers at Report stage last December. Surely, the Government have had second thoughts about the wisdom of some aspects of this rather dubious cut. I suggest to my noble friend that she should consider maintaining the lone parent element of child benefit for all lone parents with children under five. If the answer that I received from my noble friend during the course of this week is correct, such a move would hardly break the Bank of England. I asked my noble friend:
"What would he the annual cost to the Department of Social Security if all lone parents with children under five years of age were allowed to retain the lone parent element of child benefit?".
I received the following answer:
"Existing recipients will continue to retain entitlement to the lone parent element of child benefit. The estimated additional annual cost of allowing all new lone parents with children under five to receive the lone parent rate of child benefit is set out in the table (below)".— (Official Report, 12/1/98; col. WAI45.)
For 1998-99 the saving is £2 million; for 1999-2000 the saving is £8 million; and for 2000-01 the saving is £12 million. I do not believe that in terms of national finances that would break the Treasury.
I turn now to Clause 72 which deals with the restriction on the back-dating of benefit. I have great difficulty with this clause. To be frank I am rather ashamed of it. The principle of reducing the right to back payment from 12 months to three months was introduced by the previous Tory government. It was introduced during the course of the general election. The impact of that change has never been discussed by Parliament. We now have a Labour Government who proposes to reduce it to one month. Why? I understand that the purpose is to save £57 million. The clause also has an impact on local government housing benefit and council tax, which I am sure we will return to at Committee stage.
I have a particular interest in groups of industrial workers who late in life suffer disease, serious illness and often death through materials that they have used during their working lives. I worked in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry for 25 years until I was elected to Parliament. In that industry the indiscriminate use of asbestos was widespread. I have seen many former colleagues over the past few years die agonising deaths from asbestos-related cancers. The asbestos was implanted into them when they were young men, and in some cases into their wives, because it was carried home
1198
on boiler suits. Twenty-five or 30 years later, usually after three or four years of painful and crippling illness, they have been diagnosed as suffering from asbestosis or mesothelioma, with death by then close at hand. I have great difficulty in supporting this clause. Those individuals who once could have back-dated their claim by 12 months would be restricted to one month. I believe that that is quite disgraceful.
I said that I would have the greatest difficulty in supporting the clause. I beg my noble friend to look particularly at industrial workers who suffer later in life because of the materials in the industry in which they have worked and are crippled by killing diseases and often die in agony. I hope that she will consider this particular aspect and return to it at Committee and Report stages.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to those of others to the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, for delivering, as I would have expected, a most distinguished and interesting maiden speech. Unlike my noble friend Lord Russell, I have not crossed swords with the noble Lord, Lord Newton. My wife sat alongside him on a committee of Oxford University Conservative Association until within a few months she discovered that she was not a Conservative.
I note that there have been only two other Back-Bench speakers from the noble Lord's party. Although they do not deny it, the Conservatives are clearly not very anxious to call attention to their paternity of this particular unloved baby. The Government are being left to act as a lone parent. Even more striking is the fact that every single one of the much larger number of speakers from the Government's Back Benches has attacked either Clause 70 or Clause 72—or in most cases both. I was particularly impressed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Her speech was all the more powerful for being both restrained and moderate. We on these Benches have always been opposed to Clauses 70 and 72, and we shall continue to oppose them as long as it is possible to do so. As a party we are completely united on that issue.
I put two questions to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. First, I should like to read an extract from the Child Poverty Action Group briefing:
"Lone parents already on income support on 5th April 1998 will keep the premium provided they do not break their claim. If they move off income support, they will not get the premium if they have to claim income support again in the future".
Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether that extract correctly describes the position?
Secondly, does the noble Baroness accept that the only fair way to treat those who are now lone parents is to guarantee that they will continue to receive the higher rate of child benefit or family premium at any time, whether they move in or out of work, so long as they remain lone parents?
As a lawyer I should like to concentrate on the appeals procedure. As to that, I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of

1199
Sandwell, said. He speaks from a great wealth of experience as chairman of the Council on Tribunals. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The Government should listen to both of them. There are some good things in the Bill. The unification of a number of different existing tribunals is a welcome reform. However, I have four particular objections. First, I object strongly to the removal of the requirement that the appeals tribunals should have a legally qualified chairman. Until 1984, the chairmen of tribunals were not required to have legal qualifications. That, unquestionably, caused problems. There was a report by a distinguished professor, Professor Kathleen Bell, who condemned the use of non legally qualified persons to chair tribunals. As a result, in 1984, the law was changed to require the use of legally qualified chairmen. The reasons why in 1984 it was desirable to have legally qualified chairmen of tribunals are every bit as valid today.
Social security law is complex and becoming ever more so. There are many statutes involved. Indeed, they take up an entire volume of Halsbury's Statutes of England. There is an even more enormous mass of regulations. Interpretation of statutes and regulations is an essential part of the role of tribunals. That is, primarily, the role of a lawyer. Chairmen must know about principles of natural justice. They must understand how court proceedings should be conducted. They should know what evidence is relevant and what evidence is irrelevant. They will, from now on, have to be aware of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They must know how to write decisions. A well-drafted decision is central to the process of appeal. They must set out the facts, record the findings of the tribunal on disputed facts, and record their decisions on issues of law. That, again, is very much part of the professional skills of a lawyer.
The abolition of the requirement for a legally qualified chairman has been opposed by the CAB, the Child Poverty Action Group, and many other organisations. I ask the Government to think again on that. I noted that when the Minister was giving examples of matters that were suitable to be heard by three-, two-, or one-person tribunals, she indicated in each case that a legally qualified member would be involved.
My second criticism relates to Clause 13(7), which states:
"In deciding an appeal… a tribunal need not consider any issue that is not raised by the appeal".
That is wrong. The great majority of claimants will not have any detailed knowledge—very little knowledge at all—of social security law. Very few of them will have, or will have had, legal advice or representation. They will need all the help that they can get from the tribunal. If the tribunal thinks that the claimants have overlooked something that might help their claim, then the tribunal should be under a duty—not just have a power—itself to raise that issue. That point reinforces the need for legally qualified chairmen who have a broad knowledge of social security law.
1200
My third criticism relates to Clause 27. That clause raises complex issues, but it raises also an important question of principle. The question of principle is that if claimants are denied benefit because a decision maker has made an error of law, then when that mistake is corrected the claimant should receive the benefits that he or she would have had if the decision had been correct to begin with. That principle applies whether the error is made in the claimant's own case or in some other case which has been used as a precedent. That principle was, I regret to say, seriously infringed by the previous government in Sections 68 and 69 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I shall not go into the detail about the effect of those sections, as it is not appropriate to do so on Second Reading. A further infringement is now being made by Clause 27.
The Notes on Clauses say that Clause 27 clarifies Sections 68 and 69. However, it does a good deal more than that. Where what I might describe as a corrective decision is made, all pending claims depending upon that decision will now receive benefit only from the date of the corrective decision, and not, as previously, from the date of submitting their own claim, or one month before, if Clause 72 comes into effect. The deprivation of rights of claimants to have their claims backdated at least to one month before the date of their own claim is wrong in principle, and is arguably inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
My fourth and final point on the appeal procedure is one that has not been made before. It is that I regret that there has been a missed opportunity. I welcome the introduction by the Bill of a right to appeal on questions of contribution. The misfortune is that the opportunity was not taken to give jurisdiction to hear those appeals on contribution issues to the tax system; that is, to the general or special commissioners of income tax. Those issues are those listed in Part II of Schedule 3. Those issues are likely to come up to the appeal tribunals relatively infrequently. When they do come up. they will raise questions which are entirely different from the questions normally coming before the appeal tribunals under social security legislation.
Those questions will often be similar to cases which are decided by the tax tribunal; for example. the question whether someone is employed or self-employed is of the greatest importance both for liability to tax and to national insurance contributions. In each case there is an entirely different system of taxation or payment of contributions. It clearly makes sense in such a case for the same tribunal to be deciding the same issues, whether technically they come up as tax issues or national insurance issues.
The Tax Law Review Committee, of which I am a member, is a body set up by the well respected Institute for Fiscal Studies. It includes politicians from all three of the main parties, leading tax practitioners, judges, people from business, and former Inland Revenue officials. That body takes a strong view that contribution appeals should not go to the social security tribunals but should go to the tax tribunals.
As is inevitable, this is a highly technical Bill. There are many other points which are too detailed for Second Reading but which need to be taken up in Committee.

1201
It needs to be made clear that cuts in benefits for lone parents, and the reduction in the period of back-dating, are not the only defects in the Bill, although they are those which have attracted by far the greatest public attention. The changes in appeals procedure, though less high profile, also suffer from serious defects. The Government will need to be pressed on them in Committee.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Higgins, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree upon his maiden speech. I hope that he will forgive me if I remind him of the first time that we met, which was in 1989. I was part of a delegation from a national charity which visited him in his ministerial capacity. I went back into my files—they are not empty files like the Focus files about which we have heard—and looked up the report that we wrote about him. It stated that we had found him to have intellectual acuity and to put forward robust arguments, and that he had absolute integrity. I promise that we did not write that report merely because we obtained everything we wanted on that day. I was acting on behalf of a national charity which prides itself on being independent of any political party. I consider myself fortunate to be in the House and able to listen to his contribution to our debates.
Unusually, today I can give more than one congratulation. I can congratulate the Minister because she has presented a Bill which the Secretary of State lifted almost, but not quite, lock, stock and barrel from the work of my right honourable friend Peter Lilley. As my noble friend Lord Higgins said, we do not oppose most of the changes proposed in the Bill. Most of them are ours and we stand by them. However, we have reservations about some of the details and we will examine them rigorously in Committee.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the cautionary note contained in the briefing circulated to this House by His Honour Keith Bassingthwaighte, the President of the Independent Tribunal Service. He cautions that a Bill which enjoys such bi-partisan support paradoxically needs to be challenged more strenuously in order to test its effects. I, too, believe that he is right.
The Minister referred to the need to increase still further the speed and accuracy of decision making within the benefits system. While we were in government, we took considerable steps to achieve that objective and we support measures to continue that work. When I was a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee I had the opportunity to visit centres such as Tyneview Park to see at first hand the way in which modern technology was being used effectively in order to speed up decision making and the accurate revision of records. I pay tribute to those in the various agencies who have worked so hard during the past years to meet the targets set. However, it is vital to bear in mind that when we try to increase efficiency we should consider carefully the impact on the fair treatment of both the claimants and the taxpayers. At
1202
times their interests may coincide. The Government have introduced proposals of their own into the Bill which jeopardise the fair treatment of claimants to an unacceptable degree.
Clause 8 will change the constitution of tribunals. As has been explained by several other speakers, they consist of three people, one of whom is a legally qualified chairman. The Bill proposes that in future the panel will consist of one, two or three people and there will be no requirement for the chairman to be legally qualified. I, too, see several dangers in that measure. If you make it possible to select one person as the composition of a tribunal you could be making it almost inevitable that the practice will develop of calling up one person as a matter of administrative convenience and cost saving. This means that the appellant will not be able to benefit from being heard by people who have a variety of experience and expertise which might be vital to the proper consideration of the case.
Like other Members of this House, I have sat as a lay member of a social security tribunal and a child support appeal tribunal. The quality of the experience and deliberations of lay members such as myself was variable, but in that diversity, underpinned by excellent tribunal training, lay one of the strengths of the tribunal system in treating appellants fairly and examining their evidence in an informed manner.
Another reason for the success of the system in hearing cases fairly is the presence of a legally qualified chairman. In the analysis of the responses to the Green Paper consultation on improving decision making and appeals in social security, Roy Sainsbury writes:
"A return to non-legal decision makers was seen as an undesirable and retrograde step. Legally-qualified decision makers had the advantage of training and experience in judicial methods, of considering and weighing the evidence, establishing facts, identifying the relevant law to be applied in the case and making a decision based fully and only on the facts and the law".
The Government's case appears to be that it is more important to call cases on quickly by reducing the number of people on the tribunal and dropping any requirement for legally qualified members, even though that could compromise the fairness of the appeal hearing. The paper recently prepared by the presidents of the Independent Tribunal Services for Britain and Northern Ireland makes a persuasive case for the retention of legally qualified members, in particular on those occasions when a single decision maker conducts an oral hearing alone. What is the Government's justification for ignoring that informed view?
The changes to the composition of the tribunal and attempts to speed up the hearing of cases raise other questions which I would like the Minister to address. Most of them I will keep for examination in Committee, but there are two which I would like to raise briefly today. Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Higgins referred to the situation where the tribunal comprises just one person. What is the position if the individual appellant considers that he or she will not receive a fair and impartial hearing from that one person? He or she may, for example, say that the case requires a particular expertise not possessed by that individual member. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Higgins, there

1203
is to be no right for the appellant to challenge the composition of the tribunal. Can the Minister say whether the changes to the composition of tribunals proposed under the Bill offends Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights? If so, how much delay will occur in the system if appellants seek a remedy via recourse to the provisions of the European Convention?
Secondly, the Secretary of State has taken personal responsibility for setting time limits within which appeals will be heard. What will those time limits be? How will they accommodate the delays which can occur when appellants and Benefits Agency staff have to obtain information from third parties which can go back over years? Why is there no provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament upon the operation of the appeals system and, in particular, the standards of adjudication? Why does it seem that she is seeking to avoid direct parliamentary scrutiny in this matter?
I turn to Clause 72. It was not proposed by us in government. It was added to the Bill by the Labour Administration. It proposes to reduce the maximum time limit for backdating all benefits to one month before the date of claim, including retirement pensions, widows' benefits, war widows' pensions and several benefits for disabled people. My noble friends Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Blackwell argued forcefully and persuasively against these backdating provisions. The question must be: why were those provisions added to the Bill by the Government? The answer surely must be that it is a cost-cutting measure demanded by the Treasury with little regard to individual circumstances and difficulties faced by individual claimants.
During the Committee stage in another place, the Minister gave what he termed as a list of exceptions to the very harsh backdating rules which the Government are introducing. Yet he refused to put those exemptions on the face of the Bill. Why is that? I find the reason advanced by Mr. Keith Bradley in another place unconvincing at this stage. This is an issue to which we shall wish to return in Committee and I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation either today or at that point.
Many noble Lords on all sides of the House have exposed the Government's hypocrisy in bringing forward clauses which contain provisions which they opposed tooth and nail while they were sitting on this side of the House. In particular, reference has been made to the policy to reduce the rate of child benefit for lone parents to the level of that of couples. It is a move towards more even-handed treatment of one parent and two parent families by reducing the additional child benefit of just £6 to the same level as that being paid to a couple with a child.
When that measure was announced in the Budget in November 1996, the current Secretary of State opposed it in another place. When asked by Polly Toynbee, the journalist, whether she would implement the measure if in government she said, "No, of course not". I congratulate the Secretary of State on realising now that she was wrong and we were right.
1204
Finally, I look forward to the Committee stage of this Bill, which will give us the opportunity to take the advice of the president of the Independent Tribunal Service and examine the Bill rigorously. We shall take the opportunity to improve some clauses of the Bill, in particular those clauses which we should not have introduced. But where the Government prove the case for change, and if they make constructive efforts to reform the social security system, then they will find that we support them.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this has been an important, interesting and extremely full debate. Like so many of your Lordships this evening, I particularly welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, which, as we expected, was both elegant and distinguished. I join with the whole House in genuinely congratulating him and I truly urge him to allow the House to share his thoughts on social security matters on future occasions. I do not doubt that he will wish to take advantage of precisely that invitation. We shall all be the beneficiaries.
Our commitment as a government is clear: to develop an active welfare system which supports work, savings and honesty; and to reduce the bill of failure and social exclusion. To achieve that we need to build on solid foundations. We need a modern, efficient system for welfare delivery which operates sensible, streamlined procedures supported by the right information technology. That will help to free staff from cumbersome bureaucracy and allow them to focus on actively helping their customers.
We need also a national insurance scheme—I do not believe that anyone has mentioned it this evening—which balances properly people's rights and responsibilities. And we need to manage our limited budget effectively by accepting the right priorities. Those are the key foundations for the future. We believe that this Bill will set them in place.
There have been many contributions to the debate and I suspect that if I spent even one minute on each point it would take me about one hour and a half so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if, given the pressure of time, I am unable to answer every point although 1 shall of course write to noble Lords. I shall concentrate my remarks on four major areas of concern: first, decision making and appeals; secondly, the child benefit changes; thirdly, backdating; and fourthly, wider issues of regulation. I believe that those were the major issues raised in the debate.
I deal first with the appeal system and the degree to which its independence is to be protected. Those matters were raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, my noble friend Lord Borne and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not accept that the Secretary of State's responsibility for administration will compromise the independence of the appeal system. On the contrary, this Bill enhances it. Independence flows from the nature of appointments to the panel and the way in which the tribunals reach their decisions.

1205
First, all appointments to the panels will be made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, not the Secretary of State, and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. Secondly, responsibility for the functions of appeal tribunals will be placed squarely upon the president. Therefore, tribunal members and their decisions will be wholly and properly independent of the department. Regulations will provide the framework for the allocation of appeals to appropriately constituted appeal tribunals. For example, they will specify that a tribunal hearing on incapacity benefit will require a medical practitioner and so on. The president of the tribunals will be consulted on those regulations and on the guidance which will flesh them out.
Importantly—and this matter has not been raised this evening—the president will approve individual panel members for their areas of expertise or their suitability for handling particular cases; that is, the president, not the Secretary of State or an administrative officer, will determine which individual is qualified to serve on either three-member, two-member or one-member tribunals. I was asked in what situation I could conceive a non-legally qualified person handling a single-member tribunal. That will be unusual but it could be the case that a qualified accountant might be the best person to look at a contributions issue, which could be an accountancy matter. But the president will determine the appropriate qualifications of that person and his functions.
Then, in the light of that, administrative officers will allocate cases to particular types of tribunal according to the criteria set out in regulations and guidance prepared in consultation with the president. A legally qualified member of the panel will be able to give advice on handling a particular appeal if necessary. Tribunal clerks will then summon from the panel people identified by the president as having the right expertise. We believe that that will benefit appellants, will reduce the potential for delay and will remove the need for more than one tribunal to decide different issues in a single case. We do not believe that it will in any way subvert the proper independence of the tribunals. If your Lordships' fears have not been met in what I have said this evening then we shall wish to explore the matter in Committee. It may be that we can enlarge further on those points or consider further movement.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether the appellant will have any right of challenge as regards tribunal membership. The information provided will tell people how their appeals will be handled, including what kinds of people will hear which sort of cases. It will always be open to appellants to suggest which type of expertise may be relevant and if new information or facts emerge the hearing could be adjourned. But it is estimated that there will be no right of appeal to commissioners against the constitution of individual appeal tribunals.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about ECHR, as did other noble Lords, and whether there is anything in our proposals which is incompatible with ECHR legislation and plans for incorporation into domestic law. The department has looked carefully to ensure that our proposals are consistent and we shall continue to do
1206
so. We shall take account of proposals for incorporation as those are developed to ensure that decision-making and appeal arrangements are compatible. Indeed, in introducing for the first time, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, an appeal right on contribution matters, we are moving closer to complying with the requirements of ECHR.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked how the sifting process sat with people's rights under Article 6. Appellants will still have the right to appeal to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what qualifications would be prescribed in the regulations made under Clauses 6(3) and 7(3). He asked in particular whether a future government—far be it for him to consider that it might be this one—could construct a panel comprising all unqualified people. Even with the fertile imagination of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for which I have the greatest respect and admiration, having enjoyed, benefited front, and experienced it for many years now, I believe that it is inconceivable that any future government or Lord Chancellor would wish to set up a panel of people who have no qualifications and thus are ill equipped to maintain a fair and independent appeal tribunal.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that assurance. It may be inconceivable but is it infra vires?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if inconceivable does not cover intro vires, I shall write to the noble Earl. He asked also in relation to Clause 25 about test cases and whether the Secretary of State should have the power to interfere and how look-alikes would be identified. We believe that it is sensible to have proper arrangements which maintain appeal rights but which prevent double-handling and confusion for claimants. The Secretary of State will be responsible for providing instructions in guidance for staff about identifying those cases. She will issue that guidance on a case-by-case basis, making clear the specific point of law in the lead case. That guidance will he checked by lawyers and other experts in the department.
The noble Earl also raised an issue which I suspect will strike a chord with many noble Lords who, like me, have only recently moved from typewriter to word processor, although we did at least abandon our fountain pens a year or two ago. The issue concerns computers and whether they could make decisions which removed responsibility from the Secretary of State. As I suspect the noble Earl knows perfectly well, the Secretary of State will be accountable for all decisions made on her behalf either by staff or by computer. It is people, not machines or processors, who have responsibility for outputs and outcomes. Neither the agency staff nor Ministers will hide behind any excuse which suggests that, "It was the computer's fault and is nothing to do with me." I suspect that if I tried that, the noble Earl would be the first to pin me to the point.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer asked about the removal of rights of appeal under Clause 13(2) and paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 sets out decisions that have no right of appeal. They are all matters which

1207
currently do not have that right, and paragraph 8 enables that list to be extended. As we made clear in the delegated powers memorandum, we intend to use it to exclude, as now, decisions made under Regulation 4 of the social security claims and payments regulations. These are largely administration matters, such as whether a claim has been properly made. The power allows sufficient flexibility to accommodate any future changes to social security which perhaps require new processes for administration but to which it would not be sensible to attach appeal rights. We do not intend to use that power to remove existing appeal rights, nor do we intend to introduce any new welfare provision without appropriate appeal rights.
Clause 13(2) complements Schedule 2. It allows us to prescribe those administration issues on which there will be no right of appeal. If my noble and learned friend wishes further to expand that point, I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will do so.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer also asked who would appoint officers under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 and what sort of things they would do. The provision would allow the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for administration of appeals, to designate certain officers to carry out some functions. I tried to explain earlier that the administration will be handled by administrative officers but the judicial functions will be carried out by proper independent tribunal staff. The clerk will not be able to determine any appeal application or act as referee as paragraph 11(1)(a) makes clear. Again, if there are further points that need to be dealt with in that respect, I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will be the better person to follow them up in Committee.
My noble friend Lady Turner said that what was really needed was better and clearer explanation of decisions. She is absolutely right. That is exactly what many of the clauses in the Bill seek to achieve. My noble friend also asked what would be accepted as special reasons for late appeals. There are current arrangements for accepting appeals made out of time. In future, claimants will need to be clear about their appeal rights and how a decision has been reached. Notifications will be improved. However, as has been pointed out today, we need to ensure that an individual's appeal rights are not prejudiced and that vulnerable groups are not disadvantaged. While most claimants do appeal within a month, we want to discuss the details of the new arrangements with interested parties, including claimant representatives, to ensure that we get that aspect right.
Still on the subject of claimants' rights, I turn to a point made most forcefully by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. He asked whether we had been listening to the views of claimants and in what sense they had been consulted. We have issued a consultation document to something like 18,000 outlets asking people to consider whether our processes of information—that is, our leaflets, and so on—were adequate and appropriate. We are in the process of receiving those replies and studying them. I am entirely
1208
at one with the right reverend Prelate. Benefits require clear, simple and accessible information if people are to enjoy rights to which they are entitled.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised a question which he also put forward at the meeting that took place before today to brief noble Lords on this very technical Bill. Under Clause 13(7) tribunals need not consider all relevant issues. I believe that the briefing may have been somewhat misleading in that respect. I repeat: tribunals are still able to investigate any aspect of a disputed decision that they think is relevant. What we are not doing is requiring them to consider every aspect even if it is not relevant on all occasions. It means that appeals should be far more focused and faster.
The noble Lord also asked about national insurance and tax and queried why such matters should not go to tax commissioners. We have considered the matter. Sometimes a contribution issue first comes to light when a claim is made for benefits and is disallowed. Until now it has been impossible to take that to appeal. At present, the current process through social security tribunals would not be a proper way to resolve contribution matters because they frequently require special expertise. The new arrangements will give us the opportunity to construct panels which contain such expertise—possibly accountancy—including the use of people, for example, who currently sit as tax commissioners. None of these precludes in due course finding a common route of appeal for tax and contribution matters should that seem the right way forward.
I realise that I am speaking at breakneck speed, but it is important for me to cover as much of the Bill as possible before the Committee stage so that your Lordships will know where to come back to as regards the responses with which they are less than satisfied tonight.
I turn to the second major issue. It was obviously a matter of particular concern to my noble friends sitting behind me. I refer to the issue of child benefit and the effect on lone parents. Perhaps I may join the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, my noble friend, Lord Ashley, and indeed so many speakers tonight, including my noble friend, Lady Kennedy, in paying tribute to lone parents and the gallant work that they do in bringing up their children. I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that I shall play no part in any scapegoating of their role or their responsibilities.
One of the difficulties expressed in tonight's debate has been the fact that lone parents are affected by two different sets of changes. Quite understandably, because it is very technical, the debate has moved rather freely between those two sets of changes. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I shall do my best to explain the position.
The first set of changes affecting lone parents are those which have already been passed by regulation through this House. They even up the situation for new lone parents in terms of the income support family premium. Concern has been expressed that although those new lone parents—especially those with children under five—would now be at the same level of income

1209
support proportionately as workless couples, they would, nonetheless, be poorer than is currently the case. Those regulations are not the subject of this Bill. They have already gone through the House.
I should like to repeat the position quickly. I do so especially in the light of the proposals made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, regarding the position of children under five. Perhaps I may share with the House the problems that one faces on that issue. I understand where both my noble friend and the noble Baroness come from on that issue. First, if we retained an additional premium on income support for those lone parents with children under five there would, initially, be the problem of what happens when the child reaches the age of six. At present, income support allowances for children increase as the child grows older because children become more expensive. We would be turning that on its head. In other words, we would be reducing the benefit as the child gets older—for example, from the age of five to six—rather than increasing it as we currently do by steps up to the age of 11, and so on.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is not the point the fact that when the child reaches compulsory school attendance age it is much easier for the mother to have time to undertake work and thereby increase the family's income? The consideration that we were asking the noble Baroness to address was that parents with children under the age of five should not, perhaps, spend a great deal of time out of the home working? That was the major point we were trying to make.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are obviously several responses to that question. First, I suspect that the point about children at the age of five and full-time education is now one that is shifting back, given the commitment of the entire House to nursery education, and so on. Therefore, lone parents may well choose—and, in my view, quite properly—the right to go to work when the child is much younger. The second point is one made by my noble friend Lord Evans; namely, that the latter is conditional on finding work. Is the noble Baroness arguing that, even if the lone parent cannot find work when the child has reached the age of six, the benefit should be cut? That seems to me a dilemma that we would face were we to introduce an age-related premium which runs contrary to the current structure of income support.
Moreover, in terms of the under fives, there is also the consistency with workless couples to consider. At the moment there are twice as many workless couples—some 600,000 of them—as there are lone parents, the number of which is about 300,000, in the bottom income decile. It seems to me to be quite difficult to argue that we should restore it for lone parents with children under five but not for workless couples with children under five. One then starts talking about very significant sums of money.
What this Bill does is to address the second set of changes which affect lone parents which are the child benefit changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly
1210
identified. What this Bill does is to align the rate of child benefit paid to new lone parents with that paid to couples. At the moment a working lone parent with one child who receives family credit and the higher rate of child benefit receives a higher net income than does a couple with one child on the same wage. The lone parent receives more money from child benefit even though both she and the couple are in work, they both earn the same wage and they both receive the same family credit. Is one really saying that a lone parent plus child requires a higher income than two adults and one child?
Earl Russell: My Lords, does this not rest on the same principle as disability living allowance; namely, that the situation necessarily involves extra costs?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, but the extra costs are associated with childcare. That is precisely why we are addressing a childcare strategy and the more generous treatment of childcare disregard. I am entirely at one with the noble Earl on that.
These changes apply only to new lone parents. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, waxed eloquent on perverse incentives and these changes. I am not sure that he is right. I wonder whether he has fully understood them. These child benefit proposals are not affected by the work status or the level of income of the lone parent. We are saying that a lone parent on income support who currently enjoys the higher rate of child benefit can move into work with the higher rate of child benefit unaffected and move back from work on to benefit with the higher rate of child benefit protected. In this Bill there are linking rules. She can lose that higher rate of benefit only if she ceases to be a lone parent.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness; she is explaining matters extremely clearly. However, on the point I was seeking to make—and what I dubbed an in-and-out question—the noble Baroness is now reassuring us as regards the Bill. What I am not clear about is whether the same is true as regards the previously passed Statutory Instrument. Is it or is it not the case that as regards those provisions if someone starts work having received the higher rate of benefit, when he or she goes into work and comes out again, that person will go on to the lower rate of benefit? In other words, are the two things consistent?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct in his understanding. The linking rules apply to child benefit, which is what we are talking about in this Bill. The linking rules do not apply to the income support family premium which has already been discussed and accepted in this House when we discussed regulation.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, surely then the situation with regard to the Statutory Instrument is inconsistent with the Government's policy because, as the Sunday Telegraph article pointed out, this is a deterrent to someone taking the risk of going into employment?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the point we are making here is that 50 per cent. of lone parents

1211
have one child. At the moment large numbers of them stay on benefit because they are trapped in benefit even when their child has gone to school. We are seeking to assist through childcare measures and the like, as well as the national minimum wage, to produce a positive incentive and the positive "carrots" to persuade them to go to work. We believe that that is the best and most appropriate way to focus our expenditure.
We have a linking rule on this Bill. I believe that the previous government did not propose a linking rule on child benefit. The noble Lord said I had said that the child benefit proposals were perverse and batty. That was precisely because the then government did not propose a linking rule. It was therefore a disincentive for those lone parents with higher rate child benefit to go into work. We are now producing that linking rule for child benefit. Given that linking rule, our proposals for childcare, our proposals for the minimum wage, and our proposals for turning around the Child Support Agency, we firmly believe that our priorities in aiding lone parents into work are right.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to a maintenance disregard for those women on income support to enable them to keep some of the maintenance from their former partners. I greatly welcome her suggestions and I shall ensure that they are brought to the attention of those conducting the review of the Child Support Agency. If we can get fathers to pay the maintenance for their children that they should pay, and get that flow of money going to the lone parent, whether that lone parent is on income support, or is on family credit and is in work, that is clearly an appropriate and important way to sustain children at home.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, regretted that the Government were not aligning these changes in benefit with welfare-to-work proposals. She was right to suggest that we should do so. That is precisely why we are aligning these changes. We are unrolling the New Deal proposals nationally in April 1998 at the same time as the changes in family premium come into play. We are unrolling the additional disregard on family credit and extra help in June which is the time at which the child benefit changes come into play. I believe we have met her point on that.
The noble Baroness also said that freezing national insurance re-rating would increase revenues by twice the amount of the savings from Clause 70. I have no reason to challenge her figures but that is the national insurance fund which is hypothecated for other purposes. What we are talking about here is a benefit sustained by general taxation and therefore there is no "read across" between the two. The noble Baroness also mentioned the PSI report and said that a figure of £50 a week was unrealistic. I do not disagree that lone parents because of their childcare costs face higher and additional costs than do couples, although not necessarily proportionately with regard to their day-to-day living in terms of food, clothing or heating. That is why we are focusing on addressing that additional childcare cost when the lone parent does not have the support that a married couple or a cohabiting couple would have where two adults share the childcare between them.
1212
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, mentioned that the balance of taxation has moved against families with dependent children. That, of course, is one of the reasons—he will not need me to elaborate on this—the Taylor Committee is considering the integration of the tax and benefit systems. I note, however, the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, expressed about some of these implications. I know that that has formed part of the evidence submitted to the Taylor Committee for its consideration.
I now turn to backdating. My noble friend Lady Turner spoke on this, as did many other of your Lordships who have a wealth of experience. I wish to clarify the points that I believe were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, on housing benefit and council tax benefit. If I have not answered those points fully, I hope that they will contact me and I shall do my best to satisfy them. Housing and council tax benefits will be brought into line with other income related benefits. There will be no backdating but where one of the special reasons set out in the regulations applies, there may be backdating for up to one month. The clock starts ticking when the claim is received. If there has been administrative delay, arrears will be paid in full. If, for example, the Benefits Agency did not pass on the forms or mislaid them, that would not affect a claimant's rights. If a local authority is confident that the claimant had submitted the forms at the proper time, that claimant's full rights would be protected.
My noble friend Lady Turner asked about exceptions. I tried to cover those in my opening speech. One of those concerned passporting and the second concerned special reasons as regards literacy, language and learning difficulties and poor health. The third concerned cases where delay arose as a result of administrative error or where circumstances such as recent separation or bereavement came into play. Those circumstances have all been set out. My noble friend also pressed me about widow's benefit. I realise that my noble friend speaks from fairly recent experience. I suggest that a widow would normally be prompted to claim widow's benefit when the death of her husband is registered as there is a question about widow's benefit on the form registering the death. The death has to be registered within five days. We therefore normally hope and expect that the date of registration would trigger the date of claim. The widow's benefit would be backdated to that date of claim.
First on ICA and backdating, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley raised a number of issues. I was glad that she was able to give me prior notice of them. We accept that information about ICA should be included in the DLA claim form. I am pleased to say that officials are looking currently at ways of doing so, as urged by my noble friend.
Secondly, we are aware that the system of double claiming is cumbersome. However, it is there to protect the interests of carers who could lose benefit if they delayed claiming until the qualifying benefits were settled. We hope to streamline that. We are also looking at ways of ensuring that those who identify themselves as carers take up their rights as quickly as possible.

1213
Finally, various points were made about regulations. I am running out of time, even with the points that I have taken, quite properly, from your Lordships, so I shall be brief. However, with regard to the structure of the Bill, the point has been made that it contains a large number of regulation-making powers. There are a number of reasons for that. First, it is important to have a clear grasp of how the legislation is structured. About a third of the powers will be re-enactment. Secondly, we want to introduce unified decision-making and appeals arrangements across the range of the department's business, so some powers need to be repeated for benefits and child support. Thirdly, and most importantly, we want to be in a position to respond over time to operational issues which will inevitably arise during implementation. It may be that we shall find better ways of doing that as the Bill works its way through and comes into effect. We wish to be able to respond to innovations and working practice, developments in technology and from lessons learnt from practical experience and from what claimants tell us. That is why we have the regulatory powers.
My Lords, I have done my best. If I have omitted any points of substance, I apologise to the House. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write to them. As a result, I hope that the House will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I feel like saying, "I have a full speech and a tiny speech; which would your Lordships prefer?" I suspect that if I were to ask that, your Lordships would prefer the tiny one.
These regulations make a number of technical and minor amendments to regulations governing the child support scheme. In particular, the amendments correct minor errors and make changes to clarify regulations on the departures scheme, regulations on appeals and reviews, regulations on information disclosure, and regulations governing the child maintenance formula.
Today, I intend only to give an overall flavour of the regulations. However, before I do so I should like to underline the Government's commitment to a workable child support scheme. All children have the right to the care and support of both their parents wherever they may live. Fathers as well as mothers have an important contribution to make to their sons' and daughters' upbringing. To have the best chance to thrive, all children need to have a good and caring relationship with both their parents. While the Government can and probably should do little to make parents live together, they can, and should, seek to reduce the effect of parental separation on the children involved.
That is why we shall need to reform the child support system in order to ensure that it delivers support to children, rather than, as now too often, reducing absent fathers and parents with care into systems of collusion in which they seek to avoid their responsibilities.
Your Lordships have had an afternoon debating social security. I shall briefly outline the content of the regulations. First, Regulations 2 to 6 make amendments to the appeal, collection and enforcement regulations. These regulations are minor and technical. They clarify the policy intention and are neutral in effect. I stress that they do not pre-empt any of the decision making and appeals changes provided for in the Social Security Bill discussed today.
Regulations 7 to 31 make a number of minor amendments to the "departure direction" regulations, for example, to clarify the appropriate allowances to be made for the cost of supporting step-children who do not share the same parents and to allow a speedier processing of applications where a departure direction is clearly unlikely to be given. The regulations do not make any major or substantive amendments to the existing departure regulations but will assist with the smooth operation of the "departures" scheme. They are largely neutral in effect or, in some cases, benefit at least one of the parties to the departure application.
Regulations 32 to 34 amend the information, evidence and disclosure regulations and, although making only minor changes, are broadly beneficial to people using the agency. In particular, Regulation 33 provides that information may be disclosed to the courts by the Child Support Agency where there is a transfer of jurisdiction from the courts. This brings the agency into line with the courts which already have powers to disclose information to the agency. It will help to ensure smooth transition between different types of child maintenance and help to ensure an effective maintenance service for the few children where both the agency and the courts are involved in establishing maintenance arrangements. Regulation 34 provides that, in the sad event of the death of any party to a departure application, information about that application may be disclosed to the person appointed to act on behalf of the deceased. Previously, information could be disclosed only to the representative of the person who had applied for the departure direction. This, too, in the very few cases where these circumstances unhappily arise, will assist in settling matters quickly.
Regulations 35 to 41 make technical adjustments to maintenance assessment procedure regulations governing maintenance applications, interim maintenance assessments, and reviews. The regulations clarify the original policy intention of the regulations and have a neutral effect.
Regulations 42 to 58 make amendments to the maintenance assessments and special cases regulations. In particular these regulations provide for the changes in the child support scheme which need to be made in consequence of the changes in income support for lone parents which were debated in this House on 4th November.
I wish to stress to noble Lords that these amending regulations reflect changes to benefit provisions already approved by Parliament. They are purely consequential of changes already debated and approved.
The regulations before your Lordships today are largely technical, are being made to clarify intentions, or are necessary changes as a result of legislation changes elsewhere. The amendments being made are minor but will nevertheless assist in the smooth running of the child support scheme. There are a fairly large number of regulations, 58 in all, and it would therefore be helpful if any noble Lord who has the intellectual energy at this late hour to make a point or raise a query would identify by number the regulation to which he is referring. With that explanation, I hope that your Lordships will accept the regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall not detain the House more than a moment or two. Anything which improves the working of the Child Support Agency is to be wildly welcomed by anyone who suffered in the previous Parliament dealing with constituency cases.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. The noble Baroness may not be able to deal with it off the top of her head. Three parties are normally involved: the parent with care; the absent parent; or the taxpayer. Do the changes reflected in the regulations alter the balance between those three parties—the taxpayer, the parent with care and the absent parent?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not shoot the Minister. The noble Baroness is doing her best. Having watched her today, I wonder why it is that any of us ever wants power. But she has coped extremely gallantly with the situation. It has been a long day. I do not propose to detain the House for long. If I detain it perhaps a couple of minutes longer than I had expected, it is because I am aware of the human needs of those involved in both the last business and the next.
I wish to refer to Regulation 33 dealing with confidential information which has to be supplied to the courts. I wish to ask for an assurance—I hope that I may have some chance of receiving it—that thought will be given to the needs of women who have been victims of domestic violence, for whom the disclosure of information can be a very dangerous process. I wish to express my regret that nothing has been done about the provision regarding those who become step-children later than 5th April 1993. That is, I think, a missed opportunity.
When the Minister spoke of turning the Child Support Agency round, I was reminded of the old firm of house agents who used to be called Turner and Giddy. But Mr. Turner became older and older and more and more tired; and one morning London woke up and found that the firm had become Giddy and Giddy. I am reminded
1216
of that when looking at the footnotes to Regulation 1, and at footnote (e) relating to maintenance assessment procedure regulations. The reference given is:
"Si 1992/1813; relevant amending instruments arc S.I. 1993/913, 1994/227, 1995/123, 1995/1045, 1995/3261, 1996/1345 and 1996/3196".
The reference given in footnote (f), relating to maintenance assessments and special cases regulations is:
"S.I. 1992/1815; relevant amending instruments are S.I. 1993/913, 1994/227, 1995/1045, 1995/3261, 1995/3265"?
I shall not go on; the reference is too long even for the purpose.
That reminds me of the time my father-in-law was filling up his car radiator and wanted just a drop of water. The garage said, "Ah, you're a piddler"! It also reminds me of a passage in the Renton Report about Ministers' determination to go on and on fine-tuning legislation. It suggests that turning the Child Support Agency round is a process which rather tends to go on repeating itself.
I shall not go on to put any questions of policy. However, I think the Minister should consider whether she and the Secretary of State are perhaps slightly optimistic about the amount of money they think they are ever going to get this way. I know that the Minister is familiar with the Bradshaw study of 20 countries, which shows that maintenance is not a particularly important constituent in the support of single parents in any of the countries investigated. I ask her once again to consider whether just possibly that might sometimes be because the money is not there.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am even more grateful than I suspect the rest of the House is for the brevity of the contributions from the other side.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether there has been any change in the balance between the parties of taxpayer, absent parent and parent-with-care. The answer is yes, there is some marginal change, but only by small amounts, in terms of affecting maintenance assessment. In general, the effect of the abolition of the lone parent element of the family premium is to reduce the maintenance requirement where a parent-with-care is a lone parent, possibly leading to a reduction in maintenance. If the absent parent is a lone parent, then his assessable income will increase; his maintenance may go up.
However, in many cases, because of the way the formula operates and because of the level of the absent parent's income, there will be no change. If maintenance is affected, it will not be by a significant amount—we believe that it will be a few pounds at most.
The impact of the abolition of the lone parent element of child benefit is similar. A parent-with-care not receiving income support or family credit may be able to contribute less to the maintenance requirement and may therefore receive a very small amount of additional maintenance. An absent parent, equally, may pay less maintenance if he is a lone parent. However, we do not believe that there will be many such cases, and should there be such changes, they should be very small in their impact.

1217
The noble Earl. Lord Russell, raised a number of points, and mentioned "Giddy and Giddy". My noble friend Lord Carter could not resist pointing out that there is a firm of accountants called Doolittle and Daily, which I am sure is at least as enterprising a firm.
Earl Russell: I beg the noble Lord's pardon—they are solicitors.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that just shows how wise we are to have a panel of experts over and beyond the legally qualified to sit on our tribunals, accountants and solicitors alike.
The noble Earl entertained the House, as he so often does, deliberately—I am sure that he never entertains the House unintentionally—with his reference to the many footnotes to the regulations and the reference to lots of other regulations. The answer is, yes, the department intends to consolidate the child support regulations in due course and clarify the—I was about to say rigmarole—cross-referencing that makes such legislation opaque.
The noble Lord also asked about pre-1993 step-children. We are reviewing all aspects of child support. These regulations, as I hope I explained, are minor and technical. They make no substantive changes. We are not making changes at this stage.
The noble Earl also asked, more substantively, in relation to Regulation 33 about confidential information given to the courts, and whether the regulation will protect women who have been victims of domestic violence. The appeal tribunal will continue to allow any parent to opt to have her or his whereabouts kept secret. That confidentiality will also apply to the operation of Regulation 33.
Finally, the noble Earl is unduly cynical about the ability of the Government to turn the CSA around. I have the delight—though that can hardly be the right word—of chairing a review on the Child Support Agency. The agency has to be made to work. If it does not, the people who will lose will not be the Treasury or your Lordships—they will be the children of some of the poorer people in this country, who are entitled to enjoy the living standards that can be provided by both parents, their fathers as well as their mothers, in terms of both emotional and financial support. It is entirely a matter for private judgment whether those two parents can continue to live together as partners. Nonetheless, we are determined that those children should not lose both their parents. That is why we are determined to make the Child Support Agency into a child support service. I hope that in due course I shall be able to return to the House with proposals to that effect.
On Question Motion agreed to.

Middle East
8.46 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government what are their proposals for engendering an environment for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the guiding principle of land for peace under the Oslo round has evolved and stalled repeatedly since its inception, with many arguing that, if not dead, it is in a deep coma, hostage to the internal political affairs of Israel.
Palestinians from the West Bank and those in Gaza, who are subjected to life in a barricaded ghetto cut off from the rest of the world, are caught in a downward spiral of rapidly falling standards of living, with costs pegged at Israeli levels, with its per capita average annual income of 17,000 US dollars alongside Palestinians whose average income is just 1,000 US dollars per year.
In addition, 900,000 Palestinians share the Gaza Strip with just 4,000 Israeli settlers; yet those settlers control and use disproportionate water resources, which, together with lamentable sewerage systems, wild west roads and refugees living in a state of desperation, is anything but conducive to an atmosphere for peace.
On the West Bank, provocative settlements, now practically encompassing Jerusalem, with its bypass roads system, suggest that the state of Israel has long decided to make a permanent home of the West Bank.
The city of Hebron exists in a state of animosity in a sometimes powder keg charged atmosphere, with extremist Israelis physically living on top of, and totally surrounded by, Palestinians with Israeli security forces protection. It is a non-workable situation.
A further example of how the intransigence of the peace process is testing many is illustrated in a disturbing survey published last week in Amman, showing that 80 per cent. of Jordanians have turned their back on the process and now regard Israel as an enemy.
While some might say that that is evidence to support the principal concern of Israel—security—it is in my view self-inflicted. However, we must all be on guard to ensure that the frustration manifested by the survey does not turn into any suggestion of violence.
So what is the current state of the peace talks? On Tuesday the Israeli cabinet voted to insist on the unilateral implementation of a stringent list of preconditions, citing vital interests, which Palestinians have rejected, before any future negotiations on the West Bank. Yesterday, Israel decided in addition that it intends to keep large parts of the West Bank in any final settlement.
The Americans had given Prime Minister Netanyahu extended time to address redeployment issues in order to accommodate the budget process, which cost the coalition an important resignation. They have called for a round of talks in Washington between President Clinton, Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister

1219
Netanyahu suggesting a merciful involvement in not only negotiations but, it is to be hoped, implementation, by the Americans.
Concrete progress must be made. Breakdown is not an option. A climate of obligations and responsibilities must prevail.
So it is against that backdrop that the Government must respond tonight, with the added dimension of being President of the European Union. This represents a combination of added responsibility but with an opportunity to be constructive and more forward thinking about engendering an environment for peace. We should also see our shared history as a basis for doing more today. Certainly now is not the time for platitudes.
I returned at the weekend from Jerusalem, Amman, the West Bank and Gaza and was left in little doubt that hard decision-making must now be addressed. Some on the Israeli side, including moderate high ranking politicians, are adamant that external pressure is unhelpful. Maybe so; I disagree. The outside world has an investment in peace in the Arab-Israeli arena, and there is a great deal of urgency to do something positive right away.
I support, however, the premise that the Oslo round is the only game in town and must be built upon. But I have criticisms when the US programme is not being spelt out in more detail. I had the opportunity to be fully briefed by the Americans and left satisfied. Madeleine Albright has said that while she wants accelerated final status talks, it will not be at the cost of not implementing the interim steps. That approach must be right.
That said, I wonder whether consideration might not be given to introducing a new face to the process by replacing Dennis Ross with a high powered politician. It might produce a fresh approach and he might even welcome the break. Europe, for example, has, in Ambassador Moratinos, a special representative. While not suggesting that he be that person, what are his remit and objectives? What direction and role are we setting for him during the presidency?
So what is the UK approach? In the past we have opted for a posture of quiet diplomacy complementing, not contradicting, the United States, while accepting that there can only ever be one principal in the mediator role. I believe that we in Europe should be more supportive of the process than just in name and be elevated to the position of equal partners with the United States, but with the job of co-pilot being alternated. We are the principal financial backers of the Palestinian economy, having already given 500 million ecu in multilateral aid. It must be relevant to ask how that money is well spent when Israel has blockaded the Palestinian economy. Israel's exports to the European Union measure some 60 per cent., so I submit that together with our investment for peace, our role should not be restricted to purely funding but should include geopolitics.
I believe that Europe should, in the event of a breakdown or stalemate after the Washington round, consider carefully its position. If the Israelis or Palestinians fail to agree on a common approach in
1220
Washington, the Americans and Europeans as equal partners should say enough is enough, and signal their dissatisfaction through quick impact measures. In any event, the Americans do not have a monopoly on ideas. It might possibly be easier for us to be more forthright. Europe should stand ready to show its teeth and be prepared to use its cards. By that I can think of our economic card particularly which, combined with the United States overall official and unofficial aid of 5 billion US dollars to the Israelis, would be useful bargaining power.
There are many confidence-building measures that could be taken in Washington. The signing of the reasoned and balanced MOU on security seems essential and falls within the Hebron note calling for reciprocity. The granting by Israel of the Gaza seaport, airport and safe passage issues would seem beneficial also to the Israelis, as economic development and general wellbeing is fundamental and the best deterrent against terrorism.
Two points present themselves. First, Israel stands accused of double standards in its state-sponsored terrorist act in Amman. It is Prime Minister Netanyahu who is holding up the implementation of the MOU. The second point is that the Palestinians really have little left to bring to negotiations.
On the Palestinian side, the redrafting of the covenant which particularly calls for the destruction of Israel is outdated and cannot be further delayed. The Palestinians say that they have sufficiently addressed this, but not to the satisfaction of the Israelis for whom this remains a major stumbling block. Robust remarks in Arabic by Chairman Arafat on anti-Semitic propaganda and to have generally toned down Palestinian rhetoric, would also undoubtedly help the process.
The United Kingdom can also play its part. The Government have come close to endorsing the call for a Palestinian state. Why not make a statement tonight unequivocally supporting that? I can remind the Minister that 81 Members of Parliament have signed an early day Motion to that effect.
I left the region last week with the sense that a regrettable ignorance exists of Jew by Arab and vice versa in, for example, family-related matters, religious customs and the functioning of civil society. Oslo did not address that serious deficiency and this must be overcome if there is to be a real, sustainable peace. There must be, I believe, more inter-faith dialogue, most particularly on such vexing questions as Jerusalem. Another example is the regional quandary of shared and limited water resources. That must be taken as an opportunity to unite in a common endeavour, rather than turning it into a divisive issue. Further delay of consideration rather than negotiation of final status issues is not helpful. I believe that mechanisms must be found to start serious debate of these matters in the spirit of assisting decision-makers in their search for common ground. We should make this an objective of our presidency.
True peace will only come from taking the hearts and minds of the people of the region with it. A question I asked Crown Prince Hassan in Amman is, to me, of the

1221
essence: what is the role of Israel in the Arab world? The objective must be for a regional, pluralistic society, economically intertwined with respect for differing cultures, including Syria and Lebanon. That has to be the best guarantee for Israel's security. To help achieve that underlying challenge, to be underpinned by the international community, must be to assist the state of Israel solidify its aspirations and feel at peace with itself, and its neighbours, both near and far.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue, and am glad he went to the Middle East. I too have just returned. However, with respect, I feel that he does not fully understand the sensibilities and complexities of the issues which have divided those two peoples for so long.
Perhaps I may take one example. The noble Lord mentioned the covenant, and he was quite right. But that itself is a difficult issue. Prime Minister Netanyahu informed a conference of parliamentarians which I attended that the covenant had not been repealed. Nabeel Shaath, who is another friend of mine, a distinguished Palestinian negotiator, said that it had been repealed. I went to the Israel Foreign Office and said: "Well, one must be right and the other wrong". The representative said:"No, they may both be right because if they have repealed it, they have given no indication as to which articles of the covenant they have repealed".
So I went to see Chairman Arafat last Friday and asked him whether he would be good enough to provide a list of the articles because there were enough real problems without having unreal ones. I asked whether he would provide it to me or someone else, and he said: "Yes, I will provide you with it and I will do so soon". I thanked him very much and gave that information to the Minister of State, Derek Fatchett, who is in Israel now, he will be seeing Chairman Arafat and I hope that he will get the list. So in that way, between us we can at least help. With respect, it does not help to slam either side, to attack the prime ministers or chairmen of either side. It does not help to say: "Get rid of Dennis Ross". They will not listen to us if we approach matters in that way. If we want to be of help, we have to show some understanding.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I was asking whether the question could be raised as regards Dennis Ross. That is rather different from the suggestion that the noble Lord just made.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I can understand a subtle hint from the noble Lord or anyone else, and I hope that Dennis Ross does not take the hint that he dropped. Let him have a fighting chance of obtaining results. I asked Chairman Arafat what he thought of the American position and his answer was that he believed they were being fair-handed and should have a chance. If it is good enough for Chairman Arafat, for those like Afif Sofieh and others like them. I am sure it should be good enough for the noble Lord and me.
1222
There are plenty of other examples of this. For example, the anti-Semitic content of the media in the Palestinian areas. Again, Chairman Arafat said, "Give me the details and I will do my best to deal with it". That could remove another unpleasant and distasteful block to understanding between the peoples.
Finally, it would be a good idea for us to understand that Israel is a democracy. Democracy is rather like some of the health-giving drugs that we take; it has side effects. The side effect of democracy is that too often a government is elected for which we ourselves would never vote. For 18 years I tried to get rid of the government of this country and only recently succeeded in that meritorious objective.
In Israel I would not dream of voting for Netanyahu, but the Israelis elected him and, if we want to be of help in achieving peace in the Middle East, we must understand that he has been elected by the people. The kind of attacks that the noble Viscount made on him, particularly at the beginning of his speech, will not help to achieve understanding between the parties, nor will they get Prime Minister Netanyahu and his troops to take any notice of what we say. If we follow that line they will merely regard us as opponents who do not understand the complexities and sensibilities of the situation.
I have listened to both sides very carefully and met most of the leaders on both sides during last week. I suggest that we can serve a useful role; it is the role of catalyst, not the role of people coming along and saying, "If you do not behave, we will take away your trade. We will not provide you with help in what you are doing". It is the role of people who say, "We have experience. We have understanding". We understand, by the way, from our Irish experience how difficult it is to deal with terrorism and security. We understand the sensibilities and concerns of both sides and wish to help. Only in that way can we help, and we certainly should.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, although I appreciate the motives of the noble Viscount in bringing this Motion before us, I profoundly disagree with it. It is neither appropriate nor useful for Her Majesty's Government to intervene in these matters, still less to do so in association with other members of the European Union.
I have been involved in these matters for some time, although not with the same intimacy as noble Lords who have spoken so far. I believe that agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians is reachable. But that is not the main issue. The main problem and the reason why many people regard Prime Minister Netanyahu as going over the top in some respects—I can see why they think that—is that the threat to Middle East peace and, above all, to the survival of the state of Israel does not come from Mr. Arafat and his followers; it comes from two major powers.
The threat comes from Iraq, which is developing weapons of mass destruction and has again today refused to allow the inspection of biological weapons which are openly declared to be there for the annihilation of the population of Israel. It comes also

1223
from Iran which is not only preparing for the same purpose weapons of mass destruction but is assisting other countries—notably Libya—in the same direction. On top of that, it maintains a network of terrorist organisations throughout the region.
To my mind it is extraordinary that the Israeli population is not even more exasperated by the situation than it is. It is not right that countries which are remote from existential threat of this kind should think that there is a way of dealing with it except directly. Yet, when the United States thinks that something may at least be done about Iraq—it is the nearest and most immediately threatening of those countries—we find members of the European Union and other members of the Security Council who, for wholly selfish reasons, prefer to put up obstacles rather than any kind of action.
What Her Majesty's Government can best do is to persuade her fellow members of the European Union that there is no peace in the Middle East when it is being threatened by weapons of even greater horror than nuclear weapons.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to allow me to ask whether he accepts or rejects the evidence which has appeared over the past 20 years that Israel holds a stock of nuclear weapons?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, no, of course not. Thank God for Israel's nuclear weapons; otherwise that country would have been exterminated long ago. They are the one safeguard against a major war in the Middle East. They are no threat. No Iraqi pretends that Israel intends to exterminate the population of Iraq; no Iranian pretends that it intends to exterminate the population of Iran. Those are weapons of deterrence, as are our own nuclear weapons, and long may they continue to be so.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I rise for the first time to address your Lordships' House with the usual trepidation that befalls maiden speakers. I thank your Lordships for the kindly reception I have received since my introduction and I thank the staff of the House most warmly for their patience and assistance; I find the labyrinthine architecture of the Palace of Westminster most bewildering and I wonder whether I may prevail upon the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to include me in the Home Office's pilot experiment in electronically tagging convicted criminals. I am sure such a device could be adapted so that I, at least, could discover where exactly I am without having to pester the staff of the House!
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing the debate this evening. My interest in the Middle East and its problems was greatly increased from the time when I served as a governor of the University of Haifa—a university which in its research and scholarship and geographical location in northern Galilee enables it to analyse and unfortunately simultaneously to experience the problems that arise in that area; and I am happy to note that my noble friend Lord Jacobs is now chairman of its governors.
1224
This debate calls for,
"proposals for engendering an environment for peace",
which indicates a medium to long-term view; such environments are rarely quickly established, and yet we must somehow move history along. Recent history, particularly since the ending of the Cold War, reveals that there has been a mushroom growth in armed conflicts, noticeably of an intra-state character, that is now reaching pandemic proportions. Research from the University of Uppsala shows that in the period 1989-96 the world witnessed 110 armed conflicts, of which 36 were still active in 1996.
Against this awful tally, however, one can perceive some encouraging straws in the wind. The Uppsala researchers also record that in the same eight-year period some 19 peace agreements were enacted. Again, last week saw the publication of the conclusions of two important commissions chaired by distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, co-chaired the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, which calls for a United Nations rapid reaction force to be on hand to move in quickly to pre-empt the possibility of further conflagration. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, chaired a task force set up by the United Nations Association of the United States, which proposes an enlargement of the Security Council, along with a revamped military staff committee, and for the provision of better informed analysts to assist the council's work.
While it is true that these two expert reports disagree about the practicality of immediately implementing a standing UN rapid reaction force, they do not disagree about its desirability. What is important to stress is that both studies are seriously seeking to enhance the role of the United Nations in peace-keeping operations. The international community is thus being pressured by the sheer force of events to improve the United Nations capacity for preventive action, peace making, peace-keeping and peace building, all of which were the main themes of Dr. Boutros Ghali's Agenda for Peace.
There remains, of course, much more to be done. The enormous size of the task was sketched out some years ago in a powerful lecture given by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, who said:
"The historic task of creating, civil society will be complete only once there are citizenship rights for all human beings. We need a world civil society … The study of international relations has yet to become a serious subject, and there are only rudiments of genuine international law".
If those words were true in 1988, they are even truer today.
The present situation calls for a new-mind set. In the past, nation states prepared and planned for war. In the future they should prepare and plan for peace. First, the role of the defence forces in the liberal democracies needs to prepare to assist in peace keeping wherever peace is threatened; and it is to be hoped that the forthcoming defence review will address this important remodelling of our own armed forces. Secondly, the expertise of policy analysts and researchers needs to be systematically utilised by decision-makers. It is

1225
alarming to note that the United Nations itself has insufficient means to devote to the considered analysis of its own operations.
Lessons are not always learnt, nor is experience built upon in a systematic way. We need to use our own resources much better. Governments generally make less use of academic expertise in international policy-making than they do in the domestic sphere. In the United Kingdom there are considerable untapped resources available to government reposing in the universities. I can speak best for my own university, the University of Ulster. We are drawing on the experience of its Centre for the Study of Conflict which deals with the situation in Northern Ireland. We have established, in conjunction with the United Nations University, a centre for the worldwide study of ethnic conflict and its resolution, known by the acronym INCORE. We have collaborated with many bodies, particularly with the Academy for Leadership set up by the United Nations University in Jordan with the encouragement of the Crown Prince. We have collaborated recently with Professor Naomi Chazan, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, and shared her mediation experiences. We must hope that academic activity will be drawn upon by governments in the future, the better to improve our policy. We must hope that the proposals outlined in the reports from the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Carrington, and the work of the universities in Britain and elsewhere will lead to more purposeful action in the future.
There is no easy quick-fix to bring about peace settlements. The problems of the Middle East have been at the forefront of the United Nations agenda during its entire existence. To these have been added the more recent conflicts in Africa and the former Yugoslavia. We cannot wait for a further half century to elapse for these and similar conflicts to be resolved.
9.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, even in view of the time limit for speeches, brevity must in no way detract from a sense of gratitude in your Lordships' House for the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Smith of Clifton. He has spoken with clarity, conviction and from experience and that is always appreciated in your Lordships' House. I warmly congratulate him on his speech, given under some pressure. That takes some doing. He has had a notable career in education and politics and is a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and the author of a book enticingly entitled Anti-politics, and we look forward to hearing from him many times and on many subjects in your Lordships' House.
Again, I wish to approach this debate from a different angle.
"Jerusalem is a city holy for the people of three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Its unique nature of sanctity endows it with a special vocation: calling for reconciliation and harmony among people, whether citizens, pilgrims or visitors".
Thus said the heads of the Christian community in Jerusalem on 14th November 1994. Whatever else the European Union's official delegation to the peace process does, I very much hope that it will be
1226
encouraged to give its fullest support to proposals to draw religious communities more fully into dialogue and the process of reconciliation. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give an undertaking that in their period of presidency the Government will strongly support this move. It is important to recognise the enormous significance of religious communities in this fragile situation.
On 5th March 1996 the Patriarchs and heads of the Christian churches in Jerusalem, issued a press release, which in itself is a highly significant step. In it they said:
"All the various Religious Authorities in the Land have a responsibility and a role in the creation and the facilitation of a new atmosphere of peace. This can only he done through meetings and dialogue between the leading Religious Authorities".
I do not recommend international interference. I do plead for international support by Christians, Jews and Moslems for initiatives, inter-faith dialogue and reconciliation being taken by people in Jerusalem. That is a very different matter from undue and improper interference. From a recent visit to Pakistan with a Moslem leader from Bradford, I am well aware that inter-faith dialogue is not easy to set up, but it is possible and it can bear fruit.
A word about the Christians in Jerusalem. Support for the churches is crucial. Migration continues apace. The tense political situation, the poor economic prospects and limited job opportunities for a highly educated community have added to the pressure to emigrate. This has had a devastating effect on the church communities.
In 1974 Paul VI said:
"The shrines would be without the warmth of the living witness of the Holy Places of Jerusalem, and the Holy Land would become like a museum".
It is not to overstate the case to point out that the plight of the Christian churches in Jerusalem is of very great anxiety indeed.
Support for them, and also for those who are seeking reconciliation in every way, is crucial. There have indeed been Arab-Christians in Jerusalem since the day of Pentecost. A millennium visit to the Holy Land by the Pope and other Christian leaders may seem a little remote as a prospect at the moment, but I hope that the Government will work to create an atmosphere which will make such a visit possible.
Those who proclaim a gospel of reconciliation, as opposed to those who preach a message of violence, have so much to contribute and such a visit could be a major step forward.
9.18 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this Question tonight. There have been some answers to the Question that he has tabled to the Government. They have been partly provided by recent statements from the European Council meeting held last December. The Council had been greatly concerned, as indeed have many of your Lordships, at the lack of progress in implementing inter alia commitments undertaken under the interim agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

1227
Perhaps I may list a few of the issues. They are avoiding counter-productive action such as on the question of settlements; the importance of security co-operation between Israel and the Palestinians, and counter-terrorism programmes of assistance to the Palestinian authorities.
There is a need to conclude negotiations on such issues as the Gaza airport and port and safe passage for Palestinians. A substantial financial contribution from the European Union, which is the largest donor of such assistance, has been made to the Palestinian authorities.
The European Union has stated that it will enhance its support to Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem. The European Council has also stressed its readiness to assist in the negotiations on permanent status for Palestine. including on such issues as Palestinian statehood; border/security arrangements; settlements; refugees; the question of Jerusalem and in particular of eastern Jerusalem; and other matters such as water provision.
These issues will provide major opportunities for the UK presidency to play a positive role in the Middle East peace process which, as the Foreign Secretary has said, will have top priority during the British presidency. It is hoped that the meetings arranged for next week between the United States president and both Mr. Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat will yield a major contribution to keep, as one might say, "the show on the road".
To make it even remotely possible to achieve those objectives, first, Chairman Arafat must ensure tighter control of Islamic terrorists—there is no question about that—and not permit their early release to enable them to continue their devastating toll of Israeli personnel. The Israelis should cease their construction of new settlements on Palestinian territory, which is intolerable and contrary to previous agreements. I refer particularly to the West Bank and to East Jerusalem. In a recent speech on this issue, the Minister accepted that East Jerusalem was being illegally occupied by the Israelis.
Finally, the United Kingdom presidency offers major opportunities as well as responsibilities, given Britain's long concern over Palestine, to contribute to a positive advance in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. We should recall the recent words of the Foreign Secretary when he said that what we are seeking is security for Israel, but also justice for the Palestinians.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, a day or two ago Palestinian radio reported that Lord Wisely had entered Israel and Palestine in order to facilitate the visit of Mr. Derek Fatchett and to bring peace to the Middle East. I wondered what had happened and who that Member of your Lordships' House could be. It turned out to be our old friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, by a corruption of the sound of his name. In my opinion, the noble Viscount has indeed made a wise speech, so the Palestinians have shown good judgment on that matter.
1228
We must not forget the terribly unfavourable circumstances of the birth of the state of Israel. This was not a land without people into which a people without land could come and expect to be welcomed. In 1947, 13 Moslem countries voted against the UN Resolution to partition Palestine, including every one of the neighbouring states. The transplant was not locally acceptable at the time, and neither external subsidy nor domestic weaponry have made it so.
The United Kingdom, bound by its own even-handed Balfour Declaration, but powerless after the war to protect those we had committed ourselves to protect, abstained. We had been defeated by terrorism.
The trust in terror, and the fear of it, remain vivid with today's Israeli Government: not, I firmly believe. with most Israelis, who increasingly fear their own ultra-orthodox extremists as much as they fear the Islamist ones. Indeed, an opinion poll published last week showed that
"most of the Israeli public"
see the Netanyahu Government as
"the number one obstacle to the peace process".
But United States Governments believe that Israel's "military edge" is at all costs to be maintained; its nuclear weapons and threats, and its state terrorism, are never to be criticised; and the unlawful 1981 attack on Iraq is always to be justified. A similar attack on Iran today might get US support. The nuclear and other non-conventional weapons, a relatively huge arms industry, special services often out of control, and vast subsidies and support from the United States: none has produced anything but bitterness.
Inevitably, the threatening military capabilities in one country call up excessive military capabilities among those who see themselves threatened. Here be arms races, reinforcing one another. UNSCOM's failure to find, let alone destroy, what Iraq hides is proof—if it were needed—that even outright military defeat does not de-fang hatred and fear.
Would we today be so rash as to attempt such a transplant as was attempted in 1948? It was fair neither to the Palestinian nor to the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine to attempt to create two brand new 19th century nation states, utopias complete with constitutions and democracy, in an area so dense with utterly different histories, hopes and fears.
The Oslo process, the fruit of Norwegian patience, reflected Mr. Rabin's understanding that terror could not bring peace: and son of Oslo is still the key to progress. Most Israelis would now certainly prefer to belong in the Middle East. As our own Prime Minister has put it:
"The Israeli people have proven their dedication, their abilities, their ingenuity. Those assets in the service of peace could transform the whole region … nothing would entrench peace more firmly … Israel needs to listen to its true friends."
I believe that Mr. Fatchett. in expressing the view of the European Union, is one of those true friends. We look forward to hearing as much as possible about it.
9.27 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, this is a timely debate both because of the fragility of the Netanyahu majority and because of the dual anniversary of independence and the ending of the mandate. However, there can hardly be any pride in the Labour Party or in any British Government in those two events 50 years ago as far as concern the Palestinians. I trust that today the Minister will reaffirm Britain's role in the so-called peace process in its own right, not just on the coat-tails of Madeleine Albright or even the British EU presidency.
In the Adjournment Debate in another place on 17th December the Minister of State, Mr. Derek Fatchett, was understandably cautious about whether there was a peace process. We know from experience closer to home that we can hardly contribute to a process which is based on international aspirations and not on the positive actions of the communities involved. As Mr. Shimon Peres said on television last week, the peace process is needed not only by the Americans or the Arabs; it is also necessary for Israel.
Looking back, one can well understand the frustrations of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians driven from their land half a century ago and those who remained who are denied not only basic rights and resources but are still being deprived of land which they owned for generations. One can understand why some elements have resorted to suicide attacks or violence to draw attention to injustice and to more desperate alternatives than those proposed in the Oslo agreement.
The intifada was a response to violence of another kind—the violence of a political system which has pushed them right to the edge. The inescapable parallel which occurs to me is South Africa. It is not an exact parallel but it is another form of apartheid which denies Palestinians access to the wealth of the country around them and the opportunities even to make choices about their future. If the ANC has set a precedent for further sacrifices by the weak in order to defeat an extreme minority of the strong through mainly but not exclusively non-violent means, then at least we have been forewarned. The Palestinians have been waiting for justice for too long.
I have spoken to two of our leading aid agencies, Christian Aid and Save the Children, who have been active in the Middle East for all those 50 years. I have asked them what are the most acute needs. The unhesitating reply is: water and land and, in the shorter term, closures, which have cost the Palestinians 1 billion US dollars, the equivalent of their entire gross domestic product. Israeli control of drinking water, restrictions on land use and daily movement divide the communities more than any other issue. The average consumption of water by the Israeli settlements on the West Bank is four to five times higher than in the neighbouring Arab villages. It is higher even than in Israel itself. Israel diverts 75 per cent. of the Jordan river by virtue of its 1967 occupation, and fewer than one new Palestinian well per annum has been drilled during 30 years of occupation.
1230
In the Gaza Strip the coastal aquifers have had to cater for a population which has risen from its 1948 figure of 50,000 to nearly 900,000, half of them children, living in one of the most crowded areas of the world. The main aquifer is, not surprisingly, over-exploited well beyond the safety level, and is dangerously saline and polluted. The 2,500 Jewish settlers have over 30 wells drawing on a second aquifer for domestic and agricultural use. Is that not reminiscent of apartheid?
The Palestinians are also highly restricted as regards agriculture. In Israel itself Palestinians farm 17.6 per cent. of available land for crops, 17.8 per cent. for fruit and 23.5 per cent. for vegetables, yet they have access to only 2.7 per cent. of the water available for irrigation.
I conclude by asking the Minister whether she agrees with me that the restrictions I have mentioned, and the closures since February 1996, recall the Group Areas Act in South Africa and some of the worst features of apartheid. Finally, does she accept, in the spirit of the words "engendering peace", that the role of women, as we have known in Northern Ireland, is crucial in that process? Will she follow her Dutch foreign office counterparts in supporting a new peace initiative by the churches and NGOs in Jerusalem?
9.32 p.m.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, it is entirely appropriate to seek some means at this stage to break the log jam between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I commend the noble Viscount on introducing this debate. My noble friend Lord Janner said, as he so eloquently does on these occasions, that the issue is complicated. Of course it is. He went on to say that no purpose was served by criticising either side, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu.
It is notable that within Israel itself the Prime Minister is treading a narrow line. The resignation of Foreign Minister Levy makes his position ever more tenuous. It is notable also that within the US support for Israel is decreasing. I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet President Clinton next week. That is at the third time of asking. No such meeting took place on his two previous visits. That is unusual. I noticed also that the International Herald Tribune reported that in a recent poll commissioned by the Israeli Pro-Peace Policy Forum, 84 per cent. of US Jews believe that America should pressure both sides to be more constructive, and 79 per cent. favour what the Americans call a "time out" in Israeli settlement activity.
Such sentiments would not have been expressed but for the exasperation felt by many people in the USA at the lack of progress and at the barriers to progress which the Israelis seem to be putting in place in the wake of the Oslo accord. A number of reasons for that have been rehearsed this evening. I do not intend to go over that ground again. We should think of the closures and the effect that they have on the Palestinian economy. The employment of Palestinians within Israel is down in

1231
the past six years from something like 120,000 to no more than 25,000 now. We must consider the effect that must have on the standard of living of the Palestinians.
The UN Special Co-ordinator's Office in the Occupied Territories estimated a decrease of some 60 per cent. in employment on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It claimed that, in large part, that is the direct and indirect result of the 25th February 1996 closure imposed by the Israeli authorities.
The Israeli Government have maintained their decision to increase settlements, despite widespread condemnation. This Government continue to condemn the spread of settlements, as did the previous government. Something must be done about the spread because it is an impediment to any progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
It is appropriate that Britain, within its presidency of the European Union, takes action to try to move the process forward. I feel strongly about the fact that the Israelis are not moving forward on redeployment, for instance. The Oslo accord called for a 10 to 12 per cent. redeployment but the Israelis have by no means agreed to that. Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to make one redeployment and an announcement was made in the Israeli Cabinet on Tuesday, drawing its map of vital security interests, leaving the Palestinians very little. No percentage figure has been attached to that. It is to be hoped that when President Clinton and envoy Donald Ross meet Mr. Netanyahu they draw those matters to his attention. They are a brake on progress.
The EU is the single largest donor to the peace process and therefore it is appropriate that it takes on the role which I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, say was not appropriate. I believe that it is appropriate. The EU is an integrated body and has a role to play. It channels a considerable amount of finance to the area and it has a right to express its view. I hope that my noble friend Lady Symons will say that determined representations will be made by our Government to the Israeli Government so that we may ease the closure to help breathe life into the Palestinian economy. If that were to emerge during this country's presidency of the EU it would mark a solid achievement of which we could be proud and on which we could build in future relationships between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Denman: My Lords, I have two interests to declare. First, I am a trustee of the Medical Aid for Palestinians, a notable charity which is doing marvellous work in all the Arab areas. The noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, has made a great contribution to it. Secondly, I am a member of the Committee on Middle East Trade, which is part of the Overseas Trade Board and has responsibility for understanding the commercial problems of the whole region.
Soon after the Oslo declaration, I and others went to the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip to try to understand better how Britain could help. We concluded that in the appalling conditions in the Gaza Strip it was essential to make it possible for the products of Gaza—
1232
the citrus crops and so forth—to get out to the world markets. The first essential was a port and the second was an airport.
I understand that with Egyptian help the airport has been constructed but is not allowed to be operated. The port is still under discussion. The money is available for construction. We believe that we should take an example from the Second World War and build a temporary port which would, with the help of ro-ro ships and caissons, enable the movement of goods. We were soon told that the French had decided to help in producing the caissons and the Dutch in producing the ro-ro ships. That is very nearly five years ago. I urge the Government that one of the things they can do early on is to encourage the Europeans to take on those issues.
I have a positive suggestion. The Government have in their hand the Commonwealth Development Corporation, an enormously important body of great competence which has the ability to take on that issue. We have as a Member of this House the chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, who I am sure would be sympathetic to that suggestion.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for choosing this subject and for making such an excellent speech. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, on his distinguished maiden speech.
We had two extremely interesting speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Janner and Lord Beloff, which were made all the more interesting by the fact that they did not mention the key issue which has brought the peace process to a halt and indeed which has resulted in there not being a peace process; namely, the building of illegal settlements.
To give Mr. Netanyahu his due, he did not start that. He has carried on what the previous Labour government in Israel did. Not only are they illegal—they are aesthetic and political crimes. But they are also a complete negation of the peace process. As has been said, the peace process is a question of swapping land for peace. What are the settlements doing? By stealing more Palestinian land, they are taking more land rather than giving up that land. That is absolutely monstrous. It is wholly wrong that the American Government should allow that to happen. Indeed, it is yet another unfortunate example of what Gore Vidal calls the serene corruption of American politics. No other country would have been allowed to behave in that way.
By building those illegal settlements in advance of any agreement, the Israelis are not only moving the goalposts but are digging up the pitch. It is not surprising that the peace process has come to an end. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned the settlements in Gaza which are an obscenity. One sees the squalor of the Palestinians in Gaza and then one sees the swimming pools, the luxury and vast amounts of water on those Israeli settlements. Half the time the Israelis do not even live there and they are used by commuters. That shows the apartheid nature of the Israeli state at its very worst.

1233
Sara Roy, who works at the Centre of Middle East Studies at Harvard and is the daughter of Holocaust survivors, said that she believes that the goals of the Israeli state are,
"to destroy the social, economic and political structure that could provide the basis for a viable independent Palestinian state".
When one sees the conditions and ambitions of the present Israeli cabinet members which have been announced this week, one must say that Sara Roy has got it right, because the most that Mr. Netanyahu and his cabinet appear to be ready to leave the Palestinians are a very few small Indian reservations. They are very small and not joined up. Again, that is very much an apartheid state.
Of course, that is particularly true of Jerusalem. When he was in London Mr. Netanyahu said that if he was offered the choice between Jerusalem and peace, he would choose Jerusalem. But of course if he does that he will not have either in the long run because by no stretch of the imagination can East Jerusalem be considered to be Jewish. It is clearly Arab. All talk about the eternal capital of Israel is historical nonsense, as all noble Lords know.
And so it is vital that there should be a territorial compromise not only on the West Bank but also in Jerusalem. It is absolutely vital also that those settlements in Gaza should be removed forthwith. I very much hope that in the coming six months of the British presidency Britain will show an unaccustomed independence from the United States—and that applies not only to this Government but also to the previous one—and that that will breathe life into the peace process, which has not happened under the Clinton administration.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is a very sad fact that the economic and social situation of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories is worse now than it was during the intifada; it is worse than it was during the Kuwait war; and it is worse than it was during the time of the Oslo agreements. I should just like to mention four points which could—with a lot of good will, I admit—totally transform the situation. The first is free movement for the Palestinians of the West Bank between the West Bank and East Jerusalem and between both of those and Gaza.
The second point is one that was touched upon by several speakers. I refer to access to Israel for Palestinians lucky enough to have jobs there. The third point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Denman; namely, fair access for Palestinian goods, especially export goods, to ports from which they can get to the outside world. The fourth point is free access for humanitarian aid destined for the Palestinians.
I have personal experience of a container that was sent by an English charity to a Palestinian charity, consigned through the port of Askelon last year. The container was held up for over two months and was only released after payment of £8,000 in customs and other charges. That container had in it wheelchairs, aids for
1234
disabled children and young people and dried milk. I have asked the Israeli authorities for a reimbursement of that enormous sum of money.
Earlier speakers mentioned the issue of "land for peace", a principle which, I am sure, finds universal support. It is the basis upon which the relevant UN resolutions have been constructed. I express the strongest possible hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to press it.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that he was going to refer to the terrible circumstances which surround the origin of the state of Israel, I thought that he was going to talk about something else. Indeed, I thought that he would perhaps touch upon the policy of the Germans during the war, because only today we heard about the result of that policy in this Chamber during Question Time. I refer to the deliberate slaughter of homosexuals, of the disabled, of the mentally ill, of Romanies or gypsies; but, above all, we should remember that some 6 million Jews were deliberately put to death.
The latter was in the minds of the Israelis when the state of Israel was formed some 50 years ago. I heard Golda Meir and Mr. Begin when they came here. They said, "Never again". We should bear that in mind when we talk about such matters because they represent a traumatic and disgraceful episode in European history.
The European Union is concerned at present about the situation in Algeria. Indeed, in the past few days over 1,000 people have been slaughtered there. We need to think back to the origin of the Community. Noble Lords will recall that in 1950 Schuman proposed the merging of the iron and steel industries of France and Germany so that never again could they go to war because the sinews would be so closely knitted together. In fact, the coal and steel treaty was signed on 18th April 1951. That has meant that there has been an increasing opportunity for the European Union to speak as one in such matters. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is not too happy about this, but we have to seize every possible opportunity. I hope that the Government will seize the chance of the presidency to follow up what has already been said by the Minister of State, Derek Fatchett, who has already been quoted in your Lordships' House.
We had the 50th anniversary of the state of Israel this year, as I have said. We welcome a new ambassador, His Excellency Drog Zeigerman, who replaces the previous able occupant of this post, Moshe Raviv. We welcome the new ambassador and his state's 50th anniversary. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, pointed out, this state could become a powerhouse for the whole region in terms of agricultural expertise and irrigation expertise.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the nuclear weapons which Israel may possess. I say, "Thank goodness for that". The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned an Early Day Motion. An Early Day Motion was tabled in the House of Commons when the Israelis attacked Iraqi nuclear installations. The Motion

1235
condemned Israel. Thank goodness they did that because heaven knows what might have happened in the Gulf War had they not done so. We must understand the attitude of the Israelis towards these matters, because in many ways they feel they are still under seige.
This is yet another debate about this tiny area which is only the size of Wales. While it is important to talk about it, it seems to have an almost obsessional interest for some people who come back to it time after time after time. I suggest that some of the regulars in these debates might like to join those of us who are concerned about the persecution of Christians in other parts of the world. As I mentioned in a previous debate, a State Department study produced at the behest of Congress shows that the persecution of Christians is the most prevalent religious persecution throughout the world, and a great deal of it occurs in Moslem countries. I welcome the plea of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford for support for our Christian friends in Israel. But let us all try to look further than this small pocket of land in the Middle East and speak up for our Christian brothers and sisters wherever they may be and wherever they are suffering persecution.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on introducing this debate at what is clearly a crucial time in the Middle East. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton on his contribution which broadened the subject to consider the whole crucial area of conflict resolution.
I begin by saying that I think all of us recognise that there is no way forward except through some variant of the Oslo process. The noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Gilmour, referred to the basic concept of land for peace. I believe that the European Union has a responsibility continually to draw attention to breaches of the Oslo accord that makes its achievement more and more difficult. In that respect it is worth saying that the extension of settlements into East Jerusalem and on the West Bank have not made the possibility of reaching that accord any easier.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, was right to remind us—there are parallels here with the history of Ireland—that the persistence of history in Israel is one factor to be taken into account. There are long memories and great fears in this region of the world.
Having said that, I believe that there are certain constructive gains to be made from limited intervention. I refer to the coalition government of Mr. Netanyahu. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, reminded us that Israel is a democracy. However, it is a democracy which shows a rather arithmetically perfect form of election which produces large numbers of parties bound together in a way that, frankly, puts a premium on a party which tries to fight a bargain with the others using the Prime Minister as the catalyst in those issues. In a country profoundly divided between those who broadly support Likud and its related coalition partners, and those who broadly support the Labour party and its partners, one
1236
has to recognise that that puts minority parties in the strong position of asking for attitudes and policies which make the continuation of the peace process difficult. Israel may in some ways, therefore, benefit more than many countries from what one might describe as constructive intervention.
Israel regards the United States as its best friend. It has mixed views about the European Union, partly for historical reasons and because it is not certain that the European Union is in the same sense a friend. I believe that the European Union could be more bold. Perhaps I may take the analogy with Northern Ireland. There are two forces upon which we might build. One is to try again to bring the regional countries into a common forum, in a way that we are beginning to build, painfully, a forum from representatives of the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in a peace process not so far away from us. We are not a country with much reason to be able to lecture others. We have found the process infinitely painful ourselves.
However, it is by the sharing of functional arrangements that gradually one may build the bricks of peace. In that respect, I believe that the EU could be more proactive—for example, by bringing together discussions about investment in both the Palestinian areas of Israel, Israel and neighbouring countries like Jordan. I believe in promoting discussions about the division of water. In other words, the EU should invite, on a non-governmental basis but using our power and influence to bring them together, discussions on matters that would give the Palestinians some sense of a future.
I agree absolutely with what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said about the importance of access for Palestinian goods to the outside world and of enabling the Palestinians to carry forward jobs in Israel and maintain them.
In conclusion, as we have discovered with the Northern Ireland peace process—every time it seems to be getting somewhere a single act of terrorism throws it off the rails—a single suicide terrorist, a single atrocity in some market or county town in Israel, again drives the peace process to pieces. So it is not unreasonable for those of us who ask Mr. Netanyahu to be more cautious about settlements and more willing to go back to the Oslo process to recognise that it is crucial to support, train and assist the Palestinian authority in dealing with the terrorists in its midst who are not only capable of but anxious to destroy the possibility of a peace process.
9.59 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. for having secured this debate so early in the new term and at such a critical time in the Middle East. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, on his maiden speech.
This is the 50th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel, as we have heard. In the past five decades there has been much bloodshed, war, hatred and animosity, as there has been throughout the history of the area. Many lives, hopes, and dreams have been lost.

1237
The international community has sought to help the region away from open warfare, hostility and suffering towards the fruits of peace and prosperity. Progress has been made in the half century since David Ben Gurion inaugurated modern Israel. Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat achieved their breakthrough at Camp David. Former Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat together met President Clinton on the White House lawn. The 1990s have marked a milestone in the quest of peace, with the Madrid conference and the Oslo accords. Together they identify the tools of negotiation, compromise, communication and reconciliation. Indeed, in recognition of those historic efforts to achieve peace, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. Yet the events of the past 18 months have tarnished the peace process, damaging the fragile confidence and trust, thus threatening the process at its very core.
Given that the time allowed is brief, I shall not go over the many points I had intended to make since they have been ably put by so many noble Lords today. I shall restrict my remarks to the title of the debate; namely, the Government's proposals for an environment of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Although the Foreign Secretary has met Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu in London, he has not yet visited the region. Has he any plans to do so in the future?
I have not had the experience of many of your Lordships in this area, but I have visited and had discussions with the mayors of Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem and Hebron. I have been to the University of Beir Zeit and talked to some of the professors. Admittedly, that was several years ago. I have personally witnessed the suffering. I have also spent time in Jerusalem and other cities in Israel. I can understand the fear of the constant threat under which Israelis live. It is not a happy situation. I recognise, too, the enormous work done by the Jerusalem Foundation, with guidance from the past mayor, Teddy Kolleck. Its projects of co-operation between the two communities have been highly successful. Tremendous progress has been made. But there is still a long way to go.
So what of the future? As we begin 1998, the eyes of the world will be turning to Washington and to Prime Minister Netanyahu's meeting with President Clinton on 20th January to see whether the impasse which poses such a grave threat to the peace process in the Middle East can be overcome, although the Israeli internal political crisis, which cannot be discounted, has deepened with the erosion of the prime minister's paper-thin majority. I am afraid that this is an example of the damage that PR can inflict with minority extremist parties.
The international community can clearly help to play a role in the days ahead. Peace, security and economic prosperity are inextricably linked; they cannot be separated. It is vital that the people in the back streets of Gaza and the West Bank, too, see a real improvement in their standard of living. Without prosperity to underpin the peace process, one of the most effective
1238
defences against extremism and intolerance is lost. Through our economic support, as remarked by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, we can contribute to the peace process.
10.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for raising the issue of the Middle East peace process. It is a subject on which I share his concern and it will be one of the most important foreign policy priorities of our EU presidency.
Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, on his maiden speech. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's problems with the geography of this place. However, whatever his problems regarding sense of direction, they were more than adequately compensated for by his powers of oratory. I am sure that your Lordships look forward, as I do, to future contributions from the noble Lord.
My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Derek Fatchett, is currently visiting Israel and the Occupied Territories—an indication of the priority that the Government attach to high-level contacts with the main parties early in our presidency of the EU. To answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit the region in the spring.
We are determined that the EU should continue to play an important role in the search for peace, a role commensurate with the scale of European Union interests and economic support. Her Majesty's Government do not agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but agree very much with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I also assure the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich, that during our presidency, and working closely with the EU special envoy for the Middle East peace process, Ambassador Miguel Moratinos, we will use our influence within the Middle East, in Israel and in Washington to support the current process, based on the Oslo agreements and the principle of "land for peace". That was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Gilmour and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, this evening.
We welcome the continuing efforts of the United States to resolve the deadlock and restore the momentum to the process. Her Majesty's Government believe that that is the best forum. We believe, too, that that is the view of the Arab leaders closely connected with the peace process. Our aim will be to ensure that the European Union's views are heard in Washington, and we shall continue to look for ways in which EU activity can support and complement United States' efforts, namely, to facilitate and act as a catalyst, as suggested by my noble friends Lord Janner and Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. This question will be high on the agenda when the Foreign Secretary meets Mrs. Albright during his current visit to Washington.

1239
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked about our proposals:
"for engendering an environment for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians".
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, reiterated that question in her contribution. Crucial to such an environment is the full implementation of existing commitments under the Hebron and Interim agreements. We will therefore continue to press the Israelis and Palestinians to make progress on negotiations on the opening of Gaza airport, the construction of a sea port, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, suggested, on "safe passage" transit arrangements between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and on the need for further redeployments of Israeli troops from the West Bank. Only through such progress can the atmosphere of confidence be restored to allow a resumption of discussions on the shape of an overall settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore welcomed the Israeli Government's recognition of the need to address the question of further redeployments of Israeli troops from the West Bank. We look forward to the early implementation of significant, credible and timely redeployments, in line with the letter and spirit of the agreements between the parties. We will also be looking at practical ways in which the European Union could support agreement on implementation of the Interim Agreement commitments on the port and airport and safe passage issues.
We also believe that maximum and sustained security co-operation is essential to rebuild confidence between the parties and provide a firm basis for further negotiations. We welcome Palestinian commitments in London last month to a memorandum of understanding on security co-operation with Israel drawn up by the United States. We will continue to impress on President Arafat the need to exert every effort to counter the threat of terrorist attacks.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, reminded us—and the point was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—the EU already provides finance, expertise and equipment to help the Palestinians to develop their counter-terrorism capability and to enable them to fight terror more effectively. We will also pursue with the United States and the parties EU proposals for institutionalising security co-operation and handling crises, proposals which we believe flow naturally from the principles laid down in the United States' memorandum of understanding.
We and our EU partners believe that Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Territories are both illegal and damaging to the prospects of peace, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, told the House. Her Majesty's Government believe that they pre-empt the outcome of negotiations on the final status of Jerusalem and the West Bank and destroy the trust between Israelis and Palestinians. We believe that a firm commitment to refrain from such unilateral actions is vital to creating the atmosphere of trust necessary to move to final status negotiations. We will therefore ensure that the European
1240
Union continues to monitor carefully developments on the ground, including the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied territories and actions in East Jerusalem such as the withdrawal of residency rights, house demolitions and the denial of building permits to Palestinians.
Another important element in engendering an environment of peace is working for improvements in the Palestinian economy, as many noble Lords made clear this evening. We sympathise with the despair and frustration of Palestinians whose standard of living has fallen by over 30 per cent. since the Oslo agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, reminded us. As the Prime Minister said, real economic progress for the Palestinians will undermine those extremists who seek to destroy the peace process. Britain and its European Union partners have provided almost 2 billion dollars of aid to the Palestinians since 1993. In addition to our share of European Union aid, the UK bilateral programme provides £10 million per year towards the elimination of poverty on the West Bank and Gaza to help underpin the peace process.
I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we stand our corner on the question of aid and are proud to do so. The noble Earl also raised questions concerning the provision of water. We hope to see all parties in the region co-operating to make the best use of the water resources available. The Palestinian water sector is one of the priority development areas of the Department for International Development's assistance to the Palestinians.
We also seek to reinvigorate the Palestinian economy through practical assistance. Within the framework of the Euro-Med process, the European Community signed an interim association agreement with the PLO allowing preferential access to EU markets for Palestinian goods and services. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that we repeatedly remind the Israeli Government of our concern that our efforts to help the Palestinian economy are being undermined by restrictions on the free movement of Palestinian goods and people.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I can say that the EU dialogue with Israel is aimed at finding practical ways of reducing the damage done to the Palestinian economy by the measures which Israel believes necessary to ensure its security. Of course the United States has no monopoly of wisdom.
My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Derek Fatchett, is currently in the region and I can therefore assure the House that the United Kingdom Government are committed to stand our corner in the discussions. My honourable friend co-chaired a plenary session of this dialogue yesterday. We have been encouraged by the positive spirit with which Israel approached the dialogue. I take this opportunity to bring your Lordships' House up to date with what happened, as my noble friend Lord Kennet requested I should.
My honourable friend recognised Israel's legitimate need to maintain security but stressed that that should not be done in such a way as to undermine the Palestinian economy. He emphasised the dialogue which should produce positive results on the ground. The EU

1241
passed a paper to the Israeli side with clear, practical operational goals for the next six months and the EU Special Envoy to the Middle East peace process will be following that up with the Israelis.
We hope now to reach agreement on a work plan for the next six months which will enhance Palestinian worker access to Israel; improve trade flows and the movement of business people; establish better transit arrangements between Gaza and the West Bank: move ahead on the construction of the port and the opening of the airport; and encourage investment—all vital points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Denman, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and others this evening. Her Majesty's Government believe that these are win-win developments, boosting the Palestinian economy and enhancing Israel's security.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised the role of Jordan. Her Majesty's Government recognise the important part that Jordan has played in contributing towards peace in the Middle East. The Prime Minister has recently reaffirmed our desire to work closely with moderates, like King Hussein, who have taken risks to see the Oslo process succeed.
Questions were asked about the status of Jerusalem. Questions have been raised in your Lordships' House recently. Perhaps I can make Her Majesty's Government's view clear again. The status of Jerusalem should he determined in the final status talks. Neither side should seek to pre-empt this. We have condemned Israeli policies aimed at altering the demographic balance of East Jerusalem, including settlement building and confiscation of Palestinian ID cards. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be illegally occupied. We recognise no de jure sovereignty over the city.
1242
We welcome the interesting visit of the noble Lord. Lord Janner, to the Middle East last week and we also welcome the assurances given to him by Mr. Arafat that he will provide clarification on the points that were raised. We agree that the anti-Israeli views in the Palestinian media are very unhelpful.
Other questions have been raised about Iraq and Iran. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to write to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as I see from the Clock that I am about to run out of time. Perhaps I may deal with those points in correspondence and indeed with the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford about the importance of inter-faith dialogue which Her Majesty's Government support and about which I shall write to him in more detail.
I know that many noble Lords share my concern about the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories. I assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are fully and actively committed to the search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, a peace with justice and a peace with security. The international effort to re-inject momentum into the Middle East peace process will be one of the most important foreign policy priorities of our European Union presidency.

Consolidation Bills
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them on Consolidation etc. Bills do meet the Committee appointed by this House at half-past four o'clock on Wednesday 21st January, as proposed by this House.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Animal Procedures Committee: Chairman
  Animal Procedures Committee: Chairman
  TRNC: UK Immigration Rules
  TRNC: UK Immigration Rules
  Defence Technology and Doctrine: Implications
  Defence Technology and Doctrine: Implications
  Defence Animal Centre
  Defence Animal Centre
  Hammersmith and Fulham: Schools
  Hammersmith and Fulham: Schools
  Mental Health Act Commission: Seventh Biennial Report
  Mental Health Act Commission: Seventh Biennial Report
  HKSAR: EU Arms Embargo
  HKSAR: EU Arms Embargo
  Argentina and the UK Arms Embargo
  Argentina and the UK Arms Embargo
  FISCALIS Programme: Text
  FISCALIS Programme: Text
  Ecofin: 1 December Agreement
  Ecofin: 1 December Agreement
  Cross-Border Shopping and Smuggling: Revenue Losses
  Cross-Border Shopping and Smuggling: Revenue Losses