Sitting of 19 January 1998

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

    National Lottery
    Mr. Randall: If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the national lottery. [21440]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The National Lottery Bill, which received its Second Reading in another place last month, implements many of the proposals set out in the White Paper "The People's Lottery". These proposals commanded wide public support. They will make the lottery work better and increase the number of people who will benefit from the good causes which it supports.
    Mr. Randall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding of the national child care strategy demonstrates that lottery money is used to supplement core spending and is therefore in breach of its founding principles?
    Mr. Smith: I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we hold fast to the principle of additionality, as the Conservative Government did before us. The definition of additionality was enunciated by the previous Prime Minister in September 1994. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The money raised by the Lottery will not replace public expenditure."
    That is precisely not what is happening with the child care strategy. I presume from the hon. Gentleman's question that he does not want the needs of child care to be properly addressed; we do.
    Dr. Iddon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, often, those who have been able to shout the loudest and who have been able to use the social networks have benefited most from lottery money. I understand that it is the Government's intention to allow the distributors of lottery money to seek applications in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be useful in driving forward projects in the areas of greatest need, such as some in my constituency?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proposing two key changes, which will be set out in the
    672
    National Lottery Bill. One change will enable lottery distributors to seek applications where they believe that there is unmet need. The second change will mean that lottery distributors will have to draw up proper strategies for the deployment of their funds. Neither of those two provisions has existed hitherto. Until now, it has been a case of the loudest applicants with the highest paid consultants coming up to the head of the queue. We want to change that so that the lottery addresses real need.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that the revenue funding of the arts sector is in crisis, and that it has not been helped by a cut of £1.5 million this year by the Arts Council? Does he accept also that, in the past five years, the arts sector has lost £34 million in revenue, and that it seems that the crisis is not being taken account of by the Government in their redirection of the lottery funding? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say how much money he believes will be forthcoming to deal with this acute problem?
    Mr. Smith: I was able, with some difficulty, to hold the Arts Council's budget figure for the forthcoming year at the figure which had been set out in the Red Book previously. I am deeply aware, however, of the financial difficulties faced by many arts institutions around the country. That is because they have faced stringent financial provision for each of the past six years. One of the main provisions of the National Lottery Bill, which will enable lottery money to be spent on bricks, mortar and buildings and on supporting people and activities, will help to address that problem.
    Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration in the National Lottery Bill to making the 40 per cent. ruling more flexible in regard to primary schools, as it is difficult for primary schools to apply for lottery grants? Two neighbouring primary schools in an inner city will both want the community to use them, so it is impossible for the system always to work. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look into the matter?
    Mr. Smith: I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously, we are keen to ensure the greatest possible use by the local community of the facilities in schools up and down the country. There is a real synergy to be achieved between community and school use.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arts world can expect £50 million less this year than last year, whatever the figures in the Red Book? The right hon. Gentleman has taken it on himself to deprive the arts, heritage, sport and charities of £50 million each, so they will receive £250 million less than they were expecting when I made a similar statement to the one that the right hon. Gentleman is making this week. He has deprived the arts and culture of a unique opportunity. The Chancellor, having helped himself once to lottery money, will repeat that time and again. Will the Secretary of State agree to fight harder and more successfully next year than he has this year?
    Mr. Smith: I can confirm that the arts world will receive substantially less in revenue expenditure from the

    673
    Arts Council in the coming year than it did four or five years ago, but the reason for that is the right hon. Lady's stewardship of the Department. I can also confirm that each of the four distributors that she mentioned—heritage, arts, sports and charities—will receive £1.8 billion during the current franchise of the lottery. That is exactly the amount that they expected to receive at the outset of the lottery.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will know that the National Audit Office can check whether taxpayers' money has been spent properly and effectively. Surely we should be considering similar powers for the National Audit Office in respect of lottery money, because some people believe that lottery money—which is a form of voluntary taxation and a form of public expenditure—should be subject to some auditing, as some of it is wasted.
    Mr. Smith: As far as I am aware, the lottery distributary bodies, which are appointed bodies, are themselves subject to National Audit Office scrutiny in the same way as other public bodies. They, in turn, are responsible for the judicious stewardship of the grants that they award. Over the coming years, the National Audit Office and I will be keen to examine that stewardship to see whether it has been properly exercised.
    Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State says that his National Lottery Bill has widespread public support. Will he confirm that no more than 90 individuals responded to the consultation? If that is wide public support, what does he expect for unanimity? Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his rather offensive remarks that organisations that have benefited from lottery grants have done so only because they made the most fuss and employed the most expensive consultants? Many organisations up and down the country will be gravely offended by that.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his assertion, that lottery money spent by the new opportunities fund to fund the national child care strategy will not replace public spending, is directly not true? The Chancellor told us that the national child care strategy will be set up with Treasury funding, which will be replaced in due course by lottery funding. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that what he has just told the House is directly incorrect?
    Mr. Smith: No, I cannot agree with any of that. On his last point, the right hon. Gentleman may like to know what the noble Baroness Trumpington said in another place in November 1996. Speaking for the Conservative Government, she said:
    "the use of lottery funds to secure projects or programmes beyond the scope of foreseeable affordability but similar to those hitherto financed by public expenditure, or adding lottery funds to the level of affordable public expenditure in any particular area"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 567.]
    was precisely in line with additionality. That is what we are doing in setting up a national child care strategy. I am astonished that the Conservatives are clearly not interested in a proper national child care strategy to help people to get work and to help kids to grow up properly and become decent citizens. We are interested in that; they are clearly not.
    Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the concerns of people making lottery applications in my constituency is that there should be continuity among those who deal with the applications—an essential reform which would need no legislation? Each change in personnel results in different rules applying. People feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall at times.
    Mr. Smith: I very much take that point. One of our changes will make the process friendlier and easier for the users and applicants, particularly for small-scale community and neighbourhood applications—schemes for which the deployment of lottery money can result in the greatest benefit.

    United Kingdom Sports Institute
    Mr. Boswell: If he will make a statement on the UK Sports Institute. [21441]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 16 December 1997 that Sheffield was the chosen site for the headquarters of the United Kingdom Sports Institute.
    This is an historic moment for sport. It opens the next stage in a process that we believe will provide our best sporting talent with the facilities and back-up to help them compete at the highest level in the world.
    Mr. Boswell: The Minister will appreciate the disappointment felt by the residents of Upper Heyford and the adjoining parts of my constituency, as well as further afield. He has already acknowledged the possibility of having a regional establishment there. Will he be equally sympathetic to any proposals that come forward locally for a specialist institute for a particular purpose?
    Mr. Banks: I understand the disappointment felt in Upper Heyford and by the central consortium in Nottingham, as well as the hon. Gentleman's personal disappointment, because he owns a sizeable chunk of Oxfordshire.
    There is nothing to stop Upper Heyford becoming one of the regional centres. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend suggested. My feelings—these are my personal feelings—are that it could be a site for the national headquarters for the Football Association and our national soccer team, because it is in a perfect position.
    Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend reiterate the Government's commitment to regional centres in developing their sports strategy? Does he agree that centres with long records of excellence, such as Lilleshall, must have a part to play in the development of his policies?
    Mr. Banks: Of course I accept that. My hon. Friend made a good case for Lilleshall, which will undoubtedly be considered.
    Part of our strategy is to develop a proper regional structure to back up the headquarters in Sheffield. That is what the athletes, the competitors, the coaches and the

    675
    governing bodies asked us for. Although there was only one winner in the competition for the headquarters, no one lost out. My hon. Friend certainly did not.
    Mr. Spring: Although I welcome the belated establishment of the Sports Institute, what were the precise criteria for its siting that led the hon. Gentleman to reject the views of the British Olympic committee and others?
    Mr. Banks: The reason for the delay was so that we could get it right. We went along with the idea of an academy—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen and an hon. Lady on the Conservative Benches moaning about that. Although the concept of an academy was good, the structure was not going to meet the needs of the competitors. What is the point of having something that no one uses? We make no apologies for ensuring that the decision was absolutely right.
    Sheffield was chosen because the site is a single site with good transport access, which makes use of existing public investment in sports facilities, and, of course, Sheffield has experience of developing and operating national and international facilities. That is not a criticism of the other bids; in the end, if there is a shortlist for a headquarters site, there is one winner—and it was Sheffield.
    I expect—indeed, I know—that the British Olympic Association, to which the hon. Gentleman was referring rather than the committee, will play a significant part in running the academy.

    Performing Arts
    Mr. Mackinlay: What investment he is proposing to increase awareness in, and to promote appreciation of, the performing arts among children and young people. [21442]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The lottery is helping schools to extend and widen their arts activities. The National Lottery Bill, when approved, will enable the lottery to fund a still wider range of out-of-school hours arts activities.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he understand that many of us hope that, during this Parliament, the Government can do much more to extend opportunities for young people to enjoy the performing arts? I feel particularly strongly about this because I saw my first ballet in Bratislava when I was 46 years of age. I was very angry that the system had denied me that wonderful opportunity for so long. The Government's task is to extend life's experiences, liberate young people and give them the opportunity of seeing the performing arts, which the class structure in this society so often denies them, leaving the performing arts as almost the exclusive privilege of people in middle-income groups and above.
    Mr. Fisher: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has come to the joys and delights of ballet—even at this late stage. He is right: it is important that children should be given the chance to experience theatre, dance and music of all sorts if they are to have a proper and wide-ranging education. That comprises a comprehensive education.
    676
    Children are both the artists and the audiences of the future. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we have a responsibility to ensure that children have the widest opportunities to avoid the fate that has befallen him.
    Mr. Greenway: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no need for anyone to wait until they are 46 years of age to go to a ballet, because people can attend many of the matinee performances that are put on, especially for schools, by the Royal Ballet. Indeed, people can take part in many of the community projects that are put on by companies such as Opera North. Will the Minister confirm that the availability of matinee performances to schools—that means not one but two houses in London—will be a central part of the Eyre inquiry?
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he pays tribute to the work of arts companies across all art forms in arts education. The schemes run by the English National Opera, Opera North and the Royal Shakespeare Company with schools are remarkable; they are introducing children to art forms at a very early age and are doing so very well. Although the Eyre inquiry is a matter for Sir Richard Eyre, I am sure that, given his record of a superb schools programme at the national theatre, such matters will be at the forefront of his mind.
    Ms Blears: As my hon. Friend is aware, in Salford at this very moment we are building the Lowry centre, which will be a magnificent centre for the performing arts, with a particular emphasis on children. In view of the appalling viewing figures for opera which were released this morning—it seems that few people watch opera on television—does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to make opera and ballet relevant and accessible to a much wider range of working people, as we intend to do in the magnificent Lowry centre in Salford?
    Mr. Fisher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Lowry centre will be a real addition to the cultural life of the north west. It will be a superb piece of architecture and a focus for widening the access to the arts in the north-west.

    Tourism (Employment)
    Mr. Fallon: What plans he has to encourage the growth of employment in the tourism industry. [21444]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Government's new deal initiative will promote growth in tourism, which already supports some 1.7 million jobs, by helping tourism-related employers to meet their recruitment and skill needs. This has been warmly welcomed throughout the industry.
    Mr. Fallon: Will not the most likely new jobs in tourism be those administering museum charges? If he really wants to encourage tourism, why does not the Secretary of State rule out charges for important national collections—or is this another broken promise?
    Mr. Smith: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman is taking such a keen and unwonted interest in the British tourism industry, which has much to be grateful to him for. I am referring to his patronage of the

    677
    industry during his long search for a safe Tory seat, which took him on a tour from Darlington to more than 15 constituencies, including Woking, Kensington and Chelsea, Bromley, Horsham, Worthing and finally Sevenoaks. None the less, I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance that our great national museums and galleries offer in drawing tourists to this country and in providing good things for them to see once they are here.
    Mrs. Humble: What progress has been made in involving the tourism industry in the new deal, especially in co-ordinating education and training programmes for areas such as Blackpool which rely on a seasonal tourist trade?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will probably know that, a month and a half ago, we held a major conference in London with the tourism and hospitality industries to talk about how they can take advantage of the new deal. The response was positive. For example, the managing director of Radisson Edwardian Hotels said:
    "The new programme provides a strong element of training which is a key need for the industry if we are to continue to offer a world class service."
    That is the key to the future of the tourism industry—high-quality, well-trained and well-motivated staff who are decently remunerated. That is the way to get good service and to bring the customers back.
    Mr. Fabricant: Following the news this morning that the exchange rate is DM3 to the pound and that the value of the pound has reached $1.67—thanks to the Chancellor's initiative in encouraging the Bank of England to raise interest rates sky-high—what hope is there of attracting foreign visitors to the United Kingdom when going out to a restaurant in London is about twice the price of going out to a restaurant in New York?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the enormous importance of the currency exchange rates in attracting or deterring visitors. Despite the strength of the pound, overseas visits and expenditure in the first 10 months of 1997—up to October—were up by 1 per cent. compared with the same period in the previous year.

    School Playing Fields
    Mr. McNulty: What plans he has to support the provision of school playing fields. [21445]
    Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend announced last week that the Government intend to make sure that those playing fields which schools and their local communities need are not sold or redeveloped in the future. We will take powers to ensure that no school playing field is disposed of without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions proposes to require planning authorities to notify him when they are considering giving planning permission for the development of playing fields that they own and where the English Sports Council has objected. He will formally
    678
    consult local authorities on these proposals shortly. This is another manifesto commitment carried out by the Labour Government.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and I certainly welcomed the policy announcement last Friday.
    May I draw attention to a unique site in my constituency: some 44 acres of playing fields in a suburban setting, which neither Camden—the ex-Inner London education authority borough concerned—nor any other inner-London borough requires? Many of my constituents have tried as much as they can to engage with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Employment, the London Playing Fields Society, the English Sports Council, the lottery people and others to ensure that a deal is put together as swiftly as possible to get that 44 acre site back into use by the community and by schools. Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours and the offices of his Department to ensure that that happens sooner rather than later, so that my constituents may enjoy this unique facility?
    Mr. Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to safeguard the Prince Edward playing field. I know that Camden borough council is considering transferring the site to the London Playing Fields Society. I have alerted my colleagues who are responsible for the environment and education to the plight of the playing field. I expect Camden to move swiftly, and I will certainly make available whatever good offices I can to those involved in ensuring that the playing field remains for the use of the local community. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to keep up the pressure.
    Mr. Gray: The Minister will be aware that 500 boys and girls play football and rugby every Saturday in Chippenham in my constituency. Doubtless he will also be aware that at present there is only one playing field facility in Chippenham. Will he take the initiative that he announced last Friday one stage further and encourage local authorities—in this case, North Wiltshire district council—to set aside land and funds for the extra provision of playing fields where those are inadequate?
    Mr. Banks: Despite the enormous amount of information that I try to keep in my head, I was not aware that so many people played football in Chippenham in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I would most certainly be prepared to support anything that can be done to enhance the facilities available to young people there.
    Mr. Reed: I welcome the statement about playing fields, but that is only one part of the equation, as I am sure the Minister would agree. I have visited 36 schools in Loughborough since the election and have been worried by the amount of sport played by young children. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the work of organisations such as the Youth Sports Trust, of which he knows, and the Tops programme will play a vital role in the future of sport. Does he agree that we want more money and initiatives going into that? That will ensure

    679
    that Loughborough university plays a leading role in the United Kingdom Sports Institute, which I am sure he will accept is very important.
    Mr. Banks: I commend all those unbitter individuals who are raising questions surrounding the decision on the UK Sports Institute. Everyone has taken it in a sporting way. There is something in this for everyone; that specifically includes Loughborough, which is one of the great sporting centres of excellence in this country. Yes, the Youth Sports Trust and Tops—schemes which this Government very much encourage and which are also supported by the English Sports Council—are initiatives that I would want to be extended. I can assure my hon. Friend that as long as I hold a grip on this ministerial position I will continue to argue for more funds for those causes.

    National Lottery
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the introduction of the sixth good cause category of national lottery funding. [21446]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The National Lottery Bill will create a new good cause for health, education and the environment. This will support a rolling programme of targeted initiatives, the first three of which will be new technology training for teachers and librarians, out-of-school hours activities, including child care, and healthy living centres.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement, but will he concede that the introduction of a sixth good cause must lead to national lottery funding replacing public expenditure? Given that the experience of many people who have run national lotteries shows that revenue from the lottery will inevitably decline, will that not be a double blow to the interests of the five good causes?
    Mr. Smith: No, on neither count: first, because the money that is going to child care, out-of-hours school activities, information technology training for teachers and healthy living centres is entirely additional to any existing Exchequer expenditure and, secondly, because the money that each of the existing distributors will get will be exactly in line with their expectations when the lottery was first established, as I have told the House on many occasions.
    Mr. Maude: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the National Lottery Bill were enacted unamended, he or his successor would have the power by order to reduce the proceeds allocated to the existing good causes from the existing 20 per cent. to no more than 5 per cent. and that 75 per cent. of the proceeds could therefore be allocated through the new opportunities fund to Government initiatives promoted by Ministers?
    If that is the case, will the Secretary of State accept amendments that would prevent the allocation to the new opportunities fund from being increased to that level? I am sure that he understands the point that, while it may be unexceptionable for there to be reallocation between existing good causes—the allocation of funds to which is administered at arm's length from Ministers—the
    680
    uninhibited power to replace that arm's-length administration with Government-administered initiatives would be unacceptable.
    Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect: no Government-administered good causes are to be established by the Bill. The new opportunities fund will operate at arm's length from Government exactly as the existing distribution does. We will of course examine any amendments tabled by anyone, either in the House or in another place, entirely on their merits.

    Films (Product Placements)
    Mr. Sheerman: When he will meet next leaders of the British film industry to discuss the growing use of product placement in films. [21447]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): I have not received any representations on product placement.
    Mr. Sheerman: When my hon. Friend meets people in the film industry, will he raise product placement with them? It is in some senses more dangerous with generic rather than specific products. There has been an increase in both Hollywood and British films showing people smoking. As advertising becomes more regulated, there is a great fear that tobacco giants will put more money into influencing young people through their heroes on the silver screen.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Unlike in television, there is no legislation to deal with the matter in the film industry. I will pay close attention to the point.
    Mr. Forth: I hope that the Minister will give the House an absolute assurance that he will not be tempted by the politically correct, modern health fascists, or any other minority group, to seek to interfere with the artistic freedom of those who make our films.
    Mr. Clarke: Those in the industry would be the first to remind us that they, and indeed the audiences, have a say. They clearly know exactly where they are going, and the achievements even of the past eight months show that they have a successful future.

    Tourism Grants
    Mr. Hoyle: If he will reintroduce tourism grants in England under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. [21449]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The Government have no plans to reintroduce section 4 grants.
    Mr. Hoyle: Since the removal of section 4 grants by the previous Government, seaside towns and the north-west have lost heavily, while Wales and Scotland have achieved benefits by their continuation. Will my right hon. Friend consider their reintroduction?
    Mr. Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in the achievement of no fewer than 25 awards in Chorley

    681
    for projects ranging from sport to tourism. Those have been helpful in achieving the objectives that he set out. We are delighted that we have maintained the expenditure for the English Tourist Board and for the British Tourist Authority. I can assure my hon. Friend that I know that the north-west will have a great deal to say; indeed, it has already welcomed the Government's proposals for regional development.
    Mr. Collins: I hope that the Minister enjoyed his recent visit as a tourist to Ambleside in my constituency and that he will feel welcome to return on many future occasions. When he considers how to help tourism in my constituency and elsewhere, will he lend his weight to the campaign by many tourism businesses, and especially small guest houses, for the Chancellor to increase the value added tax threshold in the Budget?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the Lake district, and to Ambleside in particular. I hope that he will note the fact that his constituents are very grateful that the Minister for Tourism should have recognised the beauties of their area. His question was, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will use his opportunities to pursue it with him.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: When my right hon. Friend considers the opportunities for the development of tourism, will he place special emphasis on supporting short-term breaks? Many seaside towns, including Blackpool, benefit from the promotion and support of such breaks, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. I know that Blackpool, in common with other seaside resorts, will want to make its contribution to the tourism forum that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up a few months ago and to which he will contribute a strategic paper that will be available to the public and will cover issues such as those that my hon. Friend raised.

    British-produced Films
    Mr. Cohen: What steps he is taking to increase the number of British-produced films showing in (a) domestic and (b) international markets. [21450]
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of British-produced films shown (a) domestically and (b) internationally. [21454]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I share my hon. Friends' aspirations for British films. A key element will be the work of my film review group, which will report shortly with proposals for increasing the market for British films.
    Mr. Cohen: Did my right hon. Friend see Barry Norman's review of last year's films, in which he pointed out that, although 125 British films were begun last year—compared with only 47 five years ago—more than 40 per cent. remain unreleased despite having been completed 12 months ago? Will my right hon. Friend
    682
    take action to improve the distribution network for British films in this country and abroad? Will he go the full monty in improving the selling of British films?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right and well informed on this matter, as on others. That important issue is being considered by my film review group, which will report in a few months.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but can he reveal how the British film industry is doing in the British market, which is as important as the international market?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend and the House will be delighted to know that we have, in the past eight months, increased from 12 to 23 per cent. Britain's share of the film market, with marvellous films such as "Bean", "Mrs. Brown", "The Full Monty" and many others. We are determined to build on those wonderful achievements.

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

    New Millennium Experience Company
    Ms Abbott: If he will make a statement on the accountability to Parliament of the New Millennium Experience Company. [21470]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): As a shareholder of the company I am accountable to the House and I am delighted that, from next month, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will allow me twice as long to answer questions on the millennium experience.
    Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend will be aware that the National Audit Office recently identified serious problems in the procurement process for the dome before the establishment of the New Millennium Experience Company. In the light of that, why does my hon. Friend continue stubbornly to refuse to lay interim accounts and contractual information before Parliament in the Library? His argument in the past has been that to do so would put the New Millennium Experience Company in a different position from similar entities. I would argue that the company is different from similar entities, because it is spending £750 million. It is the people's dome and, largely, the people's money—why cannot the people know how that money is being spent?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am not denying the House or anyone else any information, stubbornly or otherwise. All the information that such a non-departmental public body needs to make available will be made available and deposited in the Library. I gather that the next accounts are required to be laid in September and that will be done. As for other financial and contractual information, an enormous amount of such information was made available to a Select Committee of the House.
    Mr. Soames: I thank the Minister for being good enough to come to the House. Will he confirm that the

    683
    blood row between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not affect the millennium project? Will the Minister also agree to publish, on a monthly basis, the cash flow forecasts for the New Millennium Experience Company?
    Mr. Mandelson: No, I will not.
    Mr. Baker: On accountability, may I draw to the Minister's attention page 1 of the ministerial code, which states:
    "Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest"?
    Does he feel that his refusal to give full information on the finances and details of the dome, as criticised by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and his clear wish to avoid giving any answers on his wider responsibilities are consistent with the code?
    Mr. Mandelson: I answer questions fully in accord with the requirements of the House. Far from the House being denied information about the finances of the company or any other aspects of its operation, the opposite is the case, as the Select Committee was kind enough to acknowledge. As for accountability, I have answered more than 100 written parliamentary questions since June. That compares with a mere 24 written and oral questions answered by my predecessors when the Conservative party was in power.
    Mr. Maude: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his victory in the titanic struggle to persuade the Leader of the House to allow him to answer questions for 10 minutes rather than five? In the same spirit of full parliamentary accountability, will he now answer the only written question that he failed to answer on Friday by telling the House what meetings took place in Britain during 1997 between his officials, the New Millennium Experience Company or him and representatives of the Disney Corporation, why they were not publicised and what was discussed?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am happy to publicise any meetings between the company and Disney, because the Select Committee urged us to take advice from and consult the acknowledged world leaders in entertainment. At the Select Committee's behest, I travelled to Florida for discussions with Disney, not to import ideas about attractions but because I wanted to discuss managing the flow of visitors, catering, internal transport and other logistical aspects; and a very useful series of meetings they have been, too.

    Millennium Experience
    Miss Kirkbride: How much has been spent on the millennium experience at Greenwich out of public funds. [21471]
    Mr. Mandelson: No taxpayers' money is being spent on the project other than that already committed by English Partnerships to prepare the site for development. The New Millennium Experience Company is receiving
    684
    a lottery grant of £399 million net from the Millennium Commission, of which the company had spent £58.5 million by the end of 1997.
    Miss Kirkbride: I understand that the Minister does not want to give us much information about the financial aspect of the millennium dome and the millennium experience, but he has said that he wishes it to be the best of British. Will he elucidate why he needs to find out about the best of British in Disneyland in Florida and why his boss the Prime Minister needs to go to Japan to find experiences that will clearly not be the best of British?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Lady cannot have listened to my reply about my visit to Disney. My responsibilities as Minister in connection with this matter have received commendation, most recently from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who in an interview last week said:
    "I think that he's doing it as well as it can be done. It is a difficult and controversial job to do and there's no easy precedent."

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Rights of Audience
    Mr. MacShane: If he will take steps to allow all qualified lawyers rights of audience in all courts. [21475]
    Mr. Mackinlay: What reforms he is proposing in the rights of audience before the courts. [21476]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government are not satisfied that all of the current restrictions on who may exercise rights of audience in the courts are in the public interest, nor are we satisfied with the current procedures for granting or extending those rights. We will announce our detailed reform proposals on the subject in due course.
    Mr. MacShane: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright? Is he saying that the last great closed shop monopoly of the professions, that of the barristers, is about to be reformed, and that my constituents who complain that their solicitors have not been allowed to take their cases into all the court areas into which they wish to have them taken will now be allowed to do so? Is this modernising Government about to reform the last great Tory restrictive practice?
    Mr. Hoon: I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no statutory bar on solicitors appearing in the higher courts; it is the Law Society's own rules that prevent them from exercising rights of audience in those courts unless they have the Law Society's higher courts qualification. It is obviously open to the Law Society to amend its rules if it wishes, but the Government are dissatisfied with the complex, bureaucratic and slow procedures that currently affect rights of audience, and we are determined to reform them.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What does my hon. Friend intend to do about the Bar Council, which has been dragging its feet on introducing the necessary mechanisms to allow barristers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service to appear in the courts? Is that not yet a further example of the restrictive practice referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), which is exercised by people who are trying to increase public expenditure unnecessarily? The CPS has trained and professionally qualified barristers who are not allowed to appear in the courts because their brethren want the rich pickings from those courts.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He has highlighted one of the underlying reasons why we believe it is necessary to reform the present arrangements. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the matter is not entirely in our hands. Employed solicitors were granted limited rights of audience in the higher courts in February last year. I, for one, find it surprising that the Bar has not yet made a formal application to the Lord Chancellor for employed barristers to be given the same rights as employed solicitors. We would welcome such an application.
    Mr. Garnier: Has the Minister given any thought to the effect that the Government's proposals to change the legal aid system and the tax system with reference to the legal profession will have on the number of qualified lawyers remaining in practice and available to appear in the courts? Will not the changes that the Government are ramming through mean that there will be fewer lawyers in practice to assist the least well off and the needy? Does he not realise that he is not reforming Clement Attlee's welfare system but dismantling it?
    Mr. Hoon: I am interested to note the hon. and learned Gentleman's use of the expression "ramming through". The proposals were first announced in October last year. We said that we would consult on them before issuing a consultation document, which is likely to be published at the end of February. Thereafter, we will consult on the proposals in it and listen carefully to the representations that we receive. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is simply not used to the idea of a Government who listen to the reactions to the consultation documents they publish.

    Disability Issues
    Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on his Department's guidance to judges in relation to disability issues. [21478]
    Mr. Hoon: The Judicial Studies Board has an advisory committee whose responsibilities were recently extended to cover all aspects of equal treatment training, including training on disability issues. The committee will be considering guidance for members of the judiciary on disability questions.
    Mr. Barnes: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that expressed by organisations such as the Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People about the case of Mary Nevin, who asked to use an alphabet board in court because she suffers from multiple sclerosis but was
    686
    refused permission by a judge? Will that decision be changed in the future so that disabled people are not discriminated against in court? Will the rules on accessibility of evidence be altered to overcome that problem?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor's Department about that case. It is obviously not appropriate for me to comment on its details, but I emphasise that it does not set a precedent—each case must be considered on its merits.
    I am encouraging members of the judiciary to be acutely sensitive to the needs of disabled people. The equal opportunities training of the judiciary will include that on disability to assist them to act sympathetically in a manner that will not impair their impartial role in the operation of the court.
    Mr. Clappison: What the Minister says about making the judiciary acutely sensitive to the needs of the disabled will be welcomed throughout the House. Does he agree, however, that that requirement should be carefully circumscribed? What does he make of the comments made by one of his Department's officials who, speaking at a conference in Cambridge at the weekend, raised the possibility of greater investigation of the political background of judges and the evolution of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords into
    "something like the Supreme Court"?
    Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of those comments, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the matters raised in the question. As I said earlier, it is important that, whatever is the response of particular judges to the disabled, that should not impair their impartial role in the operation of the court. In response to his further observations, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that information is already gathered about the political sympathies of an important element of the judiciary—magistrates.

    Courts (People with Learning Difficulties)
    Mr. Wicks: If he will make a statement about the court system's treatment of those with serious learning difficulties. [21479]
    Mr. Hoon: The Department is committed to providing a high level of service to all court users. In particular, it is playing an active and vigorous role in the vulnerable or intimidated witness working group, which was set up by the Home Secretary and is looking at improving the whole criminal justice process, including court procedures, for people with learning difficulties.
    Mr. Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that people with severe learning difficulties are at particular risk, not least from physical and sexual abuse? It is therefore important that they receive justice in the courts. What are the implications of that for court facilities and for the training of the judiciary?
    Mr. Hoon: I am aware of that concern. Sympathetically providing for and dealing with those who

    687
    suffer from disability is covered in the training with which the Judicial Studies Board is to be involved. In addition, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently issued a direction that magistrates courts committees should meet specified standards of performance relating to disabled court users. The good practice guide, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library, makes it clear that that includes people with learning disabilities.

    Conditional Fees
    Mr. Mitchell: What assessment he has made of the likely use and effectiveness of conditional fees in England and Wales. [21480]
    Mr. Hoon: By the end of 1997, at least 34,000 conditional fee agreements had been made, half of them in the past 12 months. That shows that, throughout the country, conditional fee agreements are not only an established way of funding litigation, but providing a means of access to justice for people who, in the past, were denied it.
    Mr. Mitchell: As that is a comparatively small use of conditional fees since their introduction from Scotland and as there is no indication from those figures, or from any research that anyone has seen, that such arrangements can protect the less well-off in compensation cases as well as legal aid can protect them, why does not the Lord Chancellor rethink his proposal to replace legal aid in compensation cases with conditional fees and run the two systems side by side for a period, so that we can study the effects and benefits of both systems instead of taking a leap in the dark?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend and I have debated this subject on a number of occasions, so I shall spare him the repetition of detail that I have set out previously. As I said earlier, the Government are determined to consult, in detail and in depth, about the proposals. I emphasise that, from that wide consultation, we shall not exclude any category of case that would be unlikely to attract a conditional fee agreement.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that, although conditional fees have been introduced only recently, there are considerable concerns that we could be going down the same road as courts in the USA and that a class of ambulance-chasing lawyers might start to grow here? In his further consultation, will he take seriously into account those concerns, which have been expressed by many people both inside and outside the legal profession?
    Mr. Hoon: Of course I shall take them seriously into account, but I hasten to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Government he supported that first allowed conditional fees to be introduced. Although my memory does not serve me fully, I assume that he expressed similar concerns at the time of their introduction. Conditional fees have been outstandingly successful: some 34,000 fees had been taken forward under conditional fee arrangements by the end of last year, but that statistic disguises the fact that the rate of use of conditional fees is increasing month by month.
    Mr. Burnett: In his speech to the Law Society in Cardiff on 18 October last year, the Lord Chancellor said that he intended
    "to co-ordinate these services"—
    those of citizens advice bureaux—
    "under a coherent scheme which will provide a service to the whole public which is both easy to access and to understand."
    Citizens advice bureaux fill a huge and increasing void in the provision of legal advice to individuals, and a number of bureaux have taken a great deal of time and trouble to prepare and submit applications for legal aid franchises. Why have the Government withdrawn funding for the western area citizens advice bureaux franchise?
    Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the funding of citizens advice bureaux is primarily a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am, however, keen to see their involvement in providing legal and other advice in the not-for-profit sector out of available funds. There has never been any promise of funding to any particular citizens advice bureau other than through the franchising process; that exercise is currently under way. There is no suggestion that any specific funds have been withdrawn from any organisation.

    Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
    Mr. Tipping: What representations he has received about the first annual report of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [21481]
    Mr. Hoon: To date, I have not received any such representations.
    Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister accept that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has received representations? The number of complaints has risen 7 per cent. over the previous year. As well as an increase in complaints there is a persistent view among complainants that their complaints are not treated either seriously or quickly enough. When my hon. Friend has the opportunity, will he raise those issues with the organisation and look for better performance measures?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter once again. It is clearly important that the public should have confidence in the way in which complaints against solicitors are addressed. I am determined that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, established by the Law Society, should have the opportunity to demonstrate that it is dealing effectively with complaints. It seems that one test of the office's success will be the reaction of hon. Members and their constituents. I know that the OSS would welcome visits from hon. Members so that it can listen to their concerns in person and explain what it is doing to meet them. I encourage my hon. Friend to take up the offer of a visit to the OSS.
    Mr. Fabricant: Given that the office has a role in overseeing the activities of solicitors, and further to the Minister's earlier answer that it is the Law Society, among other organisations, that is preventing the right of access of solicitors to higher courts, will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to examine the system that exists in New Zealand whereby solicitors, along with barristers, have a right of audience in higher courts?
    Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I inadvertently misled the hon. Gentleman: solicitors have the right of audience in higher courts and have had that opportunity for some time. They have to be approved by the Law Society before they are able to appear in the higher courts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves of such prior approval, as it demonstrates competence among quite a limited number of solicitors who presently satisfy the Law Society's rules in that respect.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 January].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"
      Amendment proposed [15 January]: No. 26, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert the words 'other than in Article 2, paragraph 7'.—[Mr. Cash].
      3.33 pm
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Bill Rammell: When the debate was interrupted on Thursday, I was talking about the air of unreality that often infects the debates and how out of touch they are with the views of ordinary people on the real issues concerning Europe.
      It has struck me that, in this and previous debates in Committee, the tide of anti-Europeanism that we hear from the Conservative Benches has carried on as though the events of 1 May 1997 had not taken place. I do not say that simply to make a party political point. Only twice since the second world war have major political parties in this country campaigned on a platform hostile to the European Union—Labour in 1983 and the Conservative party in 1997—and on both occasions that resulted in an overwhelming defeat for the party advocating that view. The time is long overdue for Conservative Members to reflect on that.
      I am sure that we shall hear in this and forthcoming debates in Committee—as we heard in previous debates—interesting arguments about sovereignty. Those, broadly, amounted to an argument that it is okay to have qualified majority voting and therefore, by implication, greater integration on commercial matters and a single market, but on nothing else. I do not think that that distinction is based on logic and sound principle. Once one has accepted that there is a case for qualified majority voting on some issues, it is simply a matter of judgment where to draw the line. I believe that the Government have drawn the line correctly within the treaty of Amsterdam.
      One area where we obviously need to make progress is discrimination and the need to pursue equal opportunities. Any reasonable person would conclude that the need for anti-discrimination legislation was one area where concerted action was needed. I say that not only from the perspective of social concern but in relation to economic and industrial concerns, because in this day and age, when the keys to economic and industrial success are employee skills and the maximisation of employees' potential, it is crucial that we involve every potential employee in that process. To exclude some people simply on the grounds of their sex, their race, their disability or their sexuality is not just a social evil but a cause for economic and industrial concern.
      692
      It is largely proven that we need to tackle those issues, not just across Europe, as has been argued, but specifically in Britain. In Britain today, young black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as young white people, and more than one in three black 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work. Racial attacks in Britain have doubled since 1988. Low pay in Britain disproportionately affects women: 30,000 women earn less than £1.50 an hour.
      There is a major need in Britain, but that need is at least as strong throughout Europe. The fact that, in France, the National Front, which advocates profoundly racist policies, achieves as much as 15 per cent. of the vote in the French national elections, emphasises the need for concerted action on these matters.
      Clause 1 should be judged in that context. Article 6a of the treaty of Amsterdam provides the legal base for Community measures—which must then be adopted unanimously—to combat discrimination. I do not believe that the clause will lead to major change in Britain; in many senses, we are already in the vanguard with the legislation that we have passed and proposed. However, in this area we have an opportunity to use our experience and expertise to bring about positive changes in Europe, without needing to dismantle our existing laws.
      In a sense, that is what leading in Europe should be about. Where we have the experience and the background, we should bring those to bear. Of course, in doing so, we should judge each proposal on its merits. It is worth emphasising that article 6a is an enabling provision for future action, not a free-standing and unrestricted principle.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what he considers "appropriate action" means? We have found that, in the past, the courts have interpreted clauses in a strange way.
      Mr. Rammell: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I want to address the issues before I do so. It has been argued—undoubtedly it will be argued by the hon. Gentleman—that the proposals go too far. Those concerns are not well founded.
      First, any proposal must be decided by unanimity. Clearly, if a proposal is excessive, it can be vetoed. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) rightly says, the article stipulates that any action must be appropriate to the objective—so no sledgehammers will be used to crack nuts. If a nation state deems a proposal disproportionate to the objective, it can veto it or take legal action to show—the same principle applies already in this country and throughout Europe—that the measure is indeed disproportionate.
      It is worth noting, too, that the new subsidiarity protocol makes it clear that action at the European Union level is justified only when it cannot be achieved by a member state acting alone.
      There are also exemptions allowing national characteristics to be taken into account, even if a proposal has been agreed unanimously. We have experience of that already: the 1976 equal treatment directive left member states the freedom not to require equal treatment for the sexes in some circumstances. That allowed the United

      693
      Kingdom to maintain the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, so that Church ministers and employees could remain exempt. That will be the way forward with this article.
      Above all, I maintain that active discrimination is a curse on the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, and if the article can serve to focus attention on the need for action, it is wholly to be welcomed. I hope that the Committee will welcome it today.
      Mr. Michael Howard: No one should be in any doubt about the attitude of the Conservative party to discrimination. We are resolutely opposed to it. We took action in government, legislative and otherwise, to fight it. We stand ready in opposition to support any sensible and effective measures that the Government may take to combat it.
      Among the legislative measures that we took were the Public Order Act 1986, which contains a number of provisions to deal with incitement to racial hatred, under which the maximum penalty for such incitement is two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which made the publication of racially inflammatory material an arrestable offence, and created the new offence of intentional harassment.
      We are proud of our record on race relations; they are not perfect in this country, but they are the envy of much of the rest of the world.
      We believe that legislative provisions to deal with discrimination on racial and other grounds should be carefully tailored to reflect the differing nature that those problems assume in different countries. Great care has been taken with our domestic legislation to make sure that it reflects our circumstances. That is the right approach. The difficulty—as pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—which arises out of the catch-all provisions of article 13 is that it does not meet those requirements. That difficulty is aggravated by the potential for the European Court of Justice to go beyond specific legislation and act on the basis of treaty language such as that with which we are concerned here.
      Can the Minister confirm that the ECJ could indeed intervene in that way? The Minister will be aware that widespread concern has been expressed about the far-reaching implications of the article. Let me give him some examples of discrimination that could be caught—on the face of it, would be caught—by the provision.
      Should the magistracy be open to adults under the age of 27? Should doctors be able to refuse fertility treatments to women in their late 40s? Should Sikh pupils in schools be forbidden to carry metal knives around their necks? Should the institution of marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples? Should Church schools be allowed to require the head teacher to be a practising Christian? Should they be able to insist that teachers of sex education personally adhere to the Church teaching of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it? What is the Government's view of the application of the article to those examples?
      Those examples all relate to the public sector, but there are others that relate to the private sector. All religious groups in the United Kingdom can refuse to admit
      694
      individuals to membership on the basis of their religious beliefs. Mosques are allowed to employ only practising Muslims. The Roman Catholic Church is allowed to ordain only men in the priesthood. Churches can dismiss a minister who commits adultery. What is the Government's view of the application of the article to those examples? I am indebted to Christian Action, Research and Education for providing them.
      I hope that the Minister will take those questions seriously. They have caused widespread apprehension and concern. I doubt whether the Minister can allay that apprehension and concern. If he cannot, why did the Government sign up to the article?
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson)rose—
      Mr. Howard: I have almost finished. The Minister will have his opportunity to reply when he winds up the debate.
      Those are genuine concerns. We have deep reservations about these matters, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Henderson: We have had a good debate, which was broken by the 10 pm finish on Thursday. A range of views from different parts of the House has been expressed well. It may be simplest for me to state the Government's position, and if any hon. Member on either side wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to deal with detail. There are many unknowns, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) knows.
      I shall state the principle first. Article 6a is a new measure which provides a legal base for Community measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It does not mean that the European Union will, over time, develop a panoply of measures on every one of those issues to cover every circumstance.
      Many safeguards are built in. The first is that this is an enabling measure. In itself, it does not change any Act of Parliament or any measure covered by an Act of Parliament in any EU state. As was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in his introduction to the debate, measures that are taken in the future based on the provisions of this measure must be adopted by unanimity. That means that there will have to be a huge common ground of support on such difficult and delicate social issues before the Union will be able to adopt measures based on this authority. That is a strong safeguard, which ensures that only where there is common support will the Union enact measures that will have a real impact on the lives of citizens throughout the EU.
      Examples were cited by hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on Thursday evening, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) in his contributions on Thursday and today. If we in the UK believe that racial discrimination should be outlawed, and that there should be freedom of movement for British citizens throughout the European Union, is it not reasonable to believe that the EU should be able to take action to guarantee non-discrimination for our citizens when they freely move to Europe? Is that not the core of

      695
      the issue? That is the context in which I believe the authority of the measure will be used to provide a basis for action in the future.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give a specific assurance that the new Labour Government will in no circumstances agree to any future treaty that would transfer the power from unanimity to majority vote? Does he appreciate that I ask the question because I have sat here for many years and seen measures that were previously subject to unanimity being made subject to majority vote?
      Mr. Henderson: The Government signed the treaty in relation to article 6 clause because the important safeguard of unanimity is built into it. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot commit future Governments to any particular course of action—no one can. However, we believed that that was a strong part of the article that had to be achieved in order to make it acceptable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of moving on that issue during the lifetime of this Parliament.
      Mr. Howard: If the key question is the need for members of racial minorities who are appropriately protected in this country to travel freely throughout the European Union without suffering discrimination, the answer is for other countries to introduce their own national domestic legislation in that regard. According to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, if those countries are not prepared to do that, the unanimity requirement—which is correctly part of the provision—prevents their being obliged by any action under the treaty to take such steps.
      The Minister cannot have it both ways. Does he not appreciate that the answer that he has just given to my hon. Friend destroys completely the rationale that he has provided for the article being in the treaty?
      Mr. Henderson: I do not accept that view—although it is a very nice argument—because it does not deal with the real issues. I shall discuss the subsidiarity provisions in a moment.
      If we believe that key issues within the European Union are commenting on social conditions—or even moral values in some cases—and outlawing actions such as racial discrimination, and if all member states agree that those issues must be addressed, it may be appropriate to introduce a common standard. However, that does not prevent any member state from deciding, because of its particular circumstances, to do something complementary or additional to the basic provisions that are built into European law.
      The subsidiarity article is important because it protects a nation state's distinctiveness. When a nation state believes that it has a particular problem with social conditions that does not affect other European states, it does not have to try to impose an all-embracing, Europewide measure in that regard. Therefore, I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
      The article states specifically that there must be a subsidiarity test on those issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not allow my intervention earlier, so I shall give now the assurance that I intended to give
      696
      then. The Government do not intend to change any provisions that are currently incorporated in British law regarding the issues to which he referred. For example, Muslim churches will be allowed to employ Muslim staff if that is felt to be appropriate in the circumstances and it is currently upheld in British law. We do not intend to change such provisions.
      I have received many letters from the religious community about those matters. The Government will continue to uphold those articles that are currently covered by the words "where appropriate" and the question of what is suitable according to British anti-discrimination law. Any measure that we enter into at a European level will continue to uphold that principle.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry for interrupting the Minister again. I am not trying to cause trouble; he is a very courteous person. Does he appreciate that his arguments regarding the benefits and the principles of subsidiarity are undermined in paragraph (2) on page 85 of the treaty? It says that subsidiarity is reduced by the fact that it will be overcome so that
      "the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
      I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity and I appreciate that there are many pages of documents, but his assurances regarding subsidiarity are broadly undermined by that statement.
      Mr. Henderson: Anything that had to be agreed in this context would be agreed unanimously. Paragraph (4) says:
      "the reasons for concluding that a Community objective can be better achieved by the Community must be substantiated by qualitative or, wherever possible, quantitative indicators."
      The assurances that the hon. Gentleman is looking for have already been negotiated by the Government and are to be found in the draft treaty. I do not think that there is a cause for concern. However, the issue is important.
      I want to be able to give assurances to our Churches that they can continue to operate under the provisions of British law, which exist to protect the community against racism. They are there also to ensure that there is no religious discrimination. Those protections can be assured and I want to give guarantees that will keep not only the hon. Gentleman pleased—I know that that would be extremely difficult—but my constituents and many others. Many of my constituents have questioned me on these matters, and I hope that I have been able to reassure them.
      Mr. William Cash: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has just said, the Minister cannot have it both ways. As I said when I moved the amendment, if we are to have unanimity, it is clear that either the Government are behind the provisions in the treaty, or they do not intend to agree to proposals that will come from the other member states.
      The hon. Gentleman must know whether, in principle, he is prepared to accept that position. Despite the attempts of the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), to intervene, only to be clapped off by the Minister because he wanted to listen to what I had to say, will the Minister accept that he cannot have it both ways? If there is no intention, as he

      697
      seems to be saying, to give way to what other member states would intend, will he accept that he would find it extremely difficult to justify their intrusion into the treaty?
      Mr. Henderson: When I listened to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I thought that I was hearing a great deal of self-incrimination. I thought that, rather than listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) wished to whisper in my ear, I should hear the rest of the intervention.
      The hon. Gentleman should understand that not everyone starts from his premise. We do not all start from the premise that the other 14 European states are about to impose something on the United Kingdom, which might be acceptable for them but will be hopelessly inappropriate for the society in which we live in Britain. That is not our starting point.
      Our starting point is that we are a contributor to discussion or dialogue within the European Union. There will be ideas coming forward from all member states, including the United Kingdom. We think that we have much to offer our partners in the Community in this context. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe acknowledged, Britain is ahead of the game. Our laws are probably better than those in other EU states, as is the impact of our law. I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that our position in law does not mean that there is anything like perfection in the United Kingdom, but progress has been made. Where other member states are able to examine British law and say that, in the effort to build a common base against the background of a common view—that does not exclude member states from doing something complementary to that base—the United Kingdom is pointing in the right direction, it would be desirable to follow that course.
      The unanimity provision is designed to ensure that any legislation that bears on this delicate, difficult and sensitive area has a broad base of support. That is why I believe that the article is an important part of the treaty. I do not accept—
      Mr. Howard: The Minister's argument is based on the assumption that nothing can happen under the article unless specific legislative provisions are agreed. However, he will know that, as I put to him earlier, many eminent lawyers believe that the European Court of Justice could, in effect, give direct application to the article, and that a complaint could be brought before the ECJ on the basis of the article and the general principles laid down in it. The European Court of Justice has intervened in not dissimilar circumstances in the past. Can the Minister give a specific and categorical assurance that the court will not be able to intervene on the basis of article 2 unless and until there are specific legislative provisions under it?
      Mr. Henderson: The role of the European Court of Justice does not change under the provision. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the court will continue to have a role in first-pillar matters, such as social and employment policy. If it felt that a provision was against the general principles of the treaty, of course it could have a say. However, if such a difficulty arose in respect of a third-pillar issue, the court could not intervene
      698
      unless the nation concerned made provision for it to do so. I have had this discussion with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on many occasions, so I shall now move on.
      4 pm
      Mr. Howard: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Henderson: No, I must move on. I have dealt with the issue thoroughly in previous discussions. I said again during the debate on clause 1 that the court can intervene in first-pillar matters, but not in third-pillar matters unless the Government makes provision for it to do so, and the Government have no intention of changing matters in that regard.
      The article is an important part of the treaty, and I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Howard: I have paid tribute to the Minister during our discussions because in previous debates he made genuine attempts to answer all the points that were raised. However, this afternoon his answer has been woefully inadequate. To rest on distinctions between the third pillar and the first pillar might have been appropriate before the treaty of Amsterdam, but one of the consequences of the treaty is, to a very large extent, to dissolve those differences.
      The whole point of the previous Government's position on the issue was that we wanted co-operation on racial and other discrimination issues, and we were perfectly happy to reach agreement on those issues under the third pillar. However, the introduction of the article into the treaty gives the European Court of Justice jurisdiction.
      The Minister will know perfectly well that, in its general attitude to which he referred a few moments ago, the European Court of Justice is fully entitled to take into account, in deciding whether it is appropriate for it to intervene, provisions such as those that are now contained in the treaty on European Union as a consequence of the article.
      Therefore, there is no point in the Minister pretending that the insertion of the article in the treaty makes no difference. It is wrong for him to suggest that it does not change the position of the European Court of Justice. It is a treaty article which could be taken into account by the European Court of Justice in reaching decisions on complaints brought before it. That is why I repeat my question to the Minister, to which I have so far received no answer that is remotely adequate. Is he satisfied that the European Court of Justice cannot take action on these matters without any specific legislative action being agreed by the member states? That is the question. Will the Minister now answer it?
      Mr. Doug Henderson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way?
      Mr. Howard: That depends on the Minister's answer.
      Mr. Henderson: I rise in the belief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving way to me. The implication of his remarks may be that the Opposition believe that there is no role for the European Court of Justice. That is not our view. The Government accept the need for the Court of Justice to intervene in the first pillar, as it did when the previous Government were in power.

      699
      It would be open to the Court of Justice to say that a view had not been taken on the treaty commitment to anti-discrimination in the preparation of a particular directive and that it should therefore be set aside until consideration was given. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that that is different from the European Community bringing forward anti-discrimination legislation based on the authority of the clause, which could be done only by unanimity?
      Mr. Howard: On the basis that I was previously giving way to the Minister—
      The Chairman: Order. It may be helpful if I clarify that we are in Committee, when it is open to any hon. Member to speak more than once.
      Mr. Howard: I am grateful, Sir Alan.
      Of course there is a difference between the two situations that the Minister has identified. He seems to have answered my question in the affirmative. The Court of Justice could intervene, in reliance on this article in the treaty, without any specific legislative action being agreed.
      The key lies in the Minister's opening observation when he rose to reply to the debate a few minutes ago. In a perhaps characteristic moment of frankness, he said that there were many unknowns on the issue. That is undoubtedly true, and it is the danger. Sensitivities are of the utmost importance on this matter. That is why our legislation has been so carefully crafted to reflect our national circumstances. Problems undoubtedly exist in the rest of the European Union. The best way for them to be dealt with is for other member states to take action that reflects their national circumstances. If we were dependent on specific legislative action being taken under the article, we would be in the position that has been described, because of the unanimity requirement. It would defeat the rest of the Minister's argument for having the article in the treaty, but at least that would be our position.
      The dangers arise from the possibility of the Court of Justice being able to intervene without specific legislative action, because, as the Minister has said, there are many unknowns. That is why the Government should not have agreed to the article. They should have insisted that agreements on such issues, which I am not against in principle, should have been made under the third pillar. The treaty should not contain an article giving the court jurisdiction on that.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will think carefully about the desirability of going back to Brussels to see whether something can be done about this little article. The assurances that he has given do not add up to much.
      First, the hon. Gentleman told us not to worry about it because there was the protection of unanimity. That would be fine if it were a real protection, but the Minister should bear in mind the fact that, in all the years that I and others here have been in the House, we have seen matters that were subject to unanimity fading to majority vote because Governments, in admittedly difficulty negotiating circumstances, have agreed to the change. Hon. Members should be aware that there is a widespread desire in the European Union to make everything subject to majority vote—that is not much of a protection.
      700
      The Minister also said that we have the protection of subsidiarity. I hope that hon. Members will think about that. When subsidiarity was first put into a treaty, we thought that it was an amazing step forward. I have been trying in various ways to find out how it was a step forward. I have not found any sign that the European Union has intervened less in member states' interests. In fact, it seems to have got worse.
      I genuinely hope that colleagues will look at page 85 of the treaty and see for themselves. Whereas subsidiarity used to be regarded as significant, although I do not think that it was, we find on page 85 that all the principal supports of subsidiarity are fading away. To that extent, there seems to be no protection at all.
      The third assurance was not to worry because nothing will happen concerning the European Court of Justice. The Minister has kindly and fairly accepted that, of course, something will happen concerning the court. I hope that, before we agree to such matters, hon. Members will think back to the famous case of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. It was approved by the House of Commons, we were told by the Commission that it was okay and we were told by friends in the Council of Ministers that it was okay. Everyone was happy—then, all of a sudden, some years later, the Act was wholly overturned by the Court of Justice. Therefore, approving such powers is very dangerous.
      I hope that hon. Members will think about the wording, which refers to "appropriate action". Some people will ask, "Why should we worry if they are all nice people and men of good will?" Unfortunately, we have found through time that "appropriate action" and such phrases can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It has been tragic watching previous Governments—both Conservative and Labour—discover to their horror that things to which they agreed and thought were okay turned out not to be okay at all.
      I hope that hon. Members will bear very much in mind the fact that we have heard assurance after assurance in the past. I ask those who are considering the assurances today to think of those given over Maastricht and subsidiarity.
      I am a member of a horrible little Committee called the Treasury Committee, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who is in his place. We work very hard. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard, as I did, the assurances given during debates on the Maastricht treaty about our opt-out of the single currency. I am sure that he has read carefully as I did the Bank of England's comments on the matter. They make it clear that the assurances are basically a load of codswallop. We will be subject to the rules and legislation of the EU and the ecu whether we agree to join the single currency or not.
      I do not question the Minister's sincerity. He is one of the nicest and kindliest Ministers who has dealt with this subject. I have had to deal with many bad-tempered and difficult Ministers over many years since the treaty of Rome was signed. I just hope that, because he is nice, he is not taken in more than others were. On this occasion, I think that he has been wholly taken in. Clause 1 is dangerous. It would have been far better to deal with the matter through national legislation. As I

      701
      have said over the past 23 years, to the boredom of the House, we are being misled. We are making a great mistake, and I do not think that we should do so.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister said that he thought that it would not be inappropriate to have common standards on such matters across Europe. By the same token, he said in reply to me that there was unanimity in the provisions, and it therefore could not be assumed that we would agree to arrangements that would produce the common standards to which I have just referred. The Minister knows perfectly well that the provision is a slippery slope, and there is absolutely no justification for having agreed to it.
      I said in my opening remarks that I thought that perhaps the Minister had not noticed what the provision involved. He has not given me any reassurance on that point. He has cobbled together some arguments during the debate, but I have an idea that he was not involved directly in the matter. I suspect that it was thought that article 6a was just another article with something to do with discrimination; that nobody is against discrimination so it would be extremely difficult for us to take exception to it; and that it was therefore allowed to go through on the nod. I suspect that, as the argument has developed in Committee, the Minister has concluded that some rather serious problems are inherent in the provision. It should not have been allowed to go through on the nod.
      I am glad to note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has taken a robust view of the provisions. He has risen three times in response to the Minister and the more he has done so, the more my right hon. and learned Friend has objected to the provisions. The Government's response, as he says, has been woefully inadequate. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the provisions involve the extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and he has made it clear that the provisions should not have been agreed to.
      The Minister has given us no satisfaction. The provisions may have been dealt with by unanimity, but they are bringing us into the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and they are creating a new legal framework within which the provisions will be construed.
      4.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) indicated that horse trading takes place over and over again in terms of provisions put in place by unanimity. Given the number of headings under which article 6a could be applied, there is no justification for believing that horse trading will not happen again.
      It is not just a question of religion, disability or racism; or a question of one or another of those. Hundreds of directives, regulations and communications can be brought in under the provisions; there will not be one specific directive dealing with combating religious discrimination. All those regulations are potentially subject to the Court of Justice if they are brought in
      702
      and the Government decide to agree to a particular measure. [Interruption.] If the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), cannot shut up for five minutes and allow the Minister to listen to the argument, it is a poor show for the House. The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister, and he should sit back in his seat and learn to take instructions rather than try to lecture the Minister.
      The provisions are to be brought forward by the European Commission after consultation with the European Parliament. The consultation with the European Parliament is an objectionable provision, but the key problem is that the European Commission will take the initiative. If that happens in relation to any of the provisions, it is as certain as certain can be that the Commission will go for the kind of things I mentioned in my opening remarks—uniformity, homogeneity and provisions intended to create the kind of Europe the Commission wants, which will be intrusive and evasive. Subsidiarity will have no impact on that.
      Back in the Maastricht days, I argued that subsidiarity was a con trick. The whole operation is intended to transfer upwards, but to give the impression that there will be a devolution of provisions downwards. It is nothing of the kind. All the most important matters are to be dealt with by the upper levels. That is precisely why, within the legal framework, these provisions confer on the Court of Justice jurisdiction which takes the matters to a higher level automatically. There is nothing to prevent that. It is a total disgrace and a condemnation of the Government that they are not prepared to acknowledge that they have sold the pass on these provisions.
      I suspect that there are hon. Members—not many, I regret to say—who genuinely believe that the Amsterdam treaty is not worth a row of beans. It was sold on the basis that there are people who want European homogeneity, uniformity, integration or whatever one might call it—political union—to be as extensive as possible. Even given the diminutive number of Labour Members present, I cannot believe that their constituents have not even the slightest interest in provisions of this sort, which will remove hon. Members' rights to take such decisions on their behalf.
      We are dealing with questions of religion, racism, disability and age—a whole raft of provisions. There is no conceivable reason why the Minister and the Government should have allowed those decisions to be taken away from the people who voted them in at the ballot box on 1 May. It does not matter which party is in power. The reality is that the provisions will remain the same. Every Labour Member will face the same problem, even though so few of them are present.
      When the provisions are translated into law and the horse trading takes place, subsidiarity collapses and we are confronted with the result—be it in two or three years—the Minister will produce a directive. If I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation when another raft of provisions goes through on any of those headings, I will call for a debate on the Floor of the House because they will they have gone through irrespective of the fact that the Minister said that they are a matter of unanimity. I can see some Labour members of that Select Committee present and I hope that they will remember what I am saying. I

      703
      will expect the Select Committee to demand a debate on the Floor of the House. I bet anything that the Leader of the House will say no to such a debate and propose that the matter be considered in a Standing Committee, which the Government can control.
      Mr. Greg Pope: What has this got to do with the amendment?
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is it right for the Whip to make ridiculous comments from a sedentary position?
      The Chairman: The hon. Member must not tempt me. I am responsible for order in the Committee and I will take the decisions about that.
      Mr. Cash: I am not tempting you, Sir Alan, but merely pointing out to you, as an ex-member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, that you should note that the points I am making are matters of great concern to the House. As you well know, it is all about scrutiny. The Amsterdam treaty contains provisions that relate to national Parliaments, and their role and scrutiny are part of this debate.
      I am deeply disturbed by the Minister's reaction to clause 1. He engaged in nothing less than weasel words. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, there has been no attempt to answer the serious questions that lie at the heart of the matter.
      The Minister said that at present there was no intention to deal with the sort of problems that might come up because they did not require any treatment. The Human Rights Bill is before the House of Lords. I see the Minister looking down and I suspect that he knows what I am about to say. That Bill will effectively transfer a raft of jurisdictions to the European Court, under the Amsterdam treaty.
      I am worried about the Minister's use of the words "at present". I see that he is shaking his head. That shows that he has not thought through the implications of what I am saying. It obviously has not occurred to him that there are provisions in the Human Rights Bill that cross over the provisions of article 6a. It seems likely to me that the Bill's transfer of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice will amplify that court's jurisdiction in a way that will create serious difficulties in relation to article 6a.
      I condemn the Government for acceding to the treaty and allowing article 6a to go through. I am entirely sure that, in time, my arguments and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and other Conservative Members will be justified and proved right.
      The treaty and the article are so invasive of our identity and culture and of the manner in which we, as a tolerant nation, have legislated over the years that I am convinced that, when the time comes, the Government and the Minister will be found to have been in serious default. It is such a serious matter, concerning such fundamental questions, that they will stand condemned. I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Gary Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert
      'and Protocol 7 paragraph (2)'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 22—Subsidiarity: Annual Report—
      '.—The Secretary of State shall, within a year of entry into force, and annually thereafter, publish and lay before the House a report on the application in the European Union and the United Kingdom of the principles of subsidiarity laid down in the seventh protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam.'.
      New clause 36—Subsidiarity principle: legal advice—
      'Within one month of this Act coming to force, the Government shall report to each House of Parliament that it has received specific legal advice from the Attorney General that Protocol 7 to the Treaty of Amsterdam does not prevent existing Community regulations from being repealed in so far as they relate to the United Kingdom.'.
      Mr. Streeter: All Conservative Members welcome the principle of subsidiarity. The amendment is designed to highlight the wording of the new protocol on subsidiarity contained in the Amsterdam treaty; far from strengthening that important principle, we believe that it will weaken it.
      Subsidiarity is very much a Conservative idea, advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), as Prime Minister, during the Maastricht negotiations and before. It is fair to say that, once again, people throughout Europe are benefiting from an idea that stems from the Conservative party in the United Kingdom.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I do not want to be churlish about this—nor do I want to be clever—but I must ask my hon. Friend what regulation has been changed, or what direct action has ever been taken, as a result of subsidiarity.
      Mr. Streeter: I was about to make the point that many Conservative Members would wish subsidiarity to go further and become more effective; indeed, when we heard press reports that the Government had brought back a new protocol on subsidiarity, we hoped that they had achieved an improvement, but we read to our disappointment that that was not the case.
      If it is right—some of us have reservations—that, as some Labour Members have said, the high tide of European integration has been reached and is receding, perhaps the principle of subsidiarity has played a small part in bringing that about. It is an important principle. I recognise that it has been far from perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. It represents an honest attempt to assert the primacy of the nation state.
      In my opinion, such a concept connects favourably with what most people in Europe want. There are politicians throughout Europe who want an increasingly integrated Europe, but I believe that they are out of step with the heartbeat of most of the people of Europe.
      Subsidiarity is important, and the relevant wording in the Maastricht treaty is effective. Article 3b states:
      "the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."

      705
      We must now consider protocol 7 in the Amsterdam treaty, especially paragraph 2, which states:
      "The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'."
      4.30 pm
      That paragraph shows that the principle of subsidiarity has been expressly subordinated to those very principles, pillars and institutions that created the suffocating, supranational activity in the first place. Far from being improved by protocol 7, the principle of subsidiarity has been neutered and emasculated. Subsidiarity will be not more effective, as everybody in this Committee would wish, but less.
      Under the Maastricht treaty, the European Union hired a watchdog and gave it full licence to roam throughout the Community to restrict the extent to which the European Union sought to do those things that could be better done at national level. People had reservations about the effectiveness of that watchdog, but that was the spirit behind Maastricht. Under Amsterdam, that watchdog has been muzzled, and is chained and locked in its kennels. The Minister may not agree, in which case I invite him to make that clear in his response. However, I believe that he has brought back from Amsterdam a watchdog that cannot bark.
      Protocol 7 is now long and complex. Instead of a simple principle that everybody understood—although it was ineffectively implemented—we now have a long and complex protocol, full of contradictory statements. That will be food and drink to the European Court of Justice, which will be able to interpret the protocol according to its vision of, and attitude towards, European Union development.
      Does anyone in this Committee believe that such interpretation will enhance and support the principle of subsidiarity? Rather, it will seek to give free reign to dominance by the institutions of the European Union. The protocol is long and full of warm words, typical of a new Labour attitude to problem solving. It contains weasel words and is touchy-feely, but unfortunately it does not stand up in the light of day. It will be fertile ground for the European Court of Justice to weave its magic.
      Some progress has been made under subsidiarity, and we support some of the programmes that have been brought forward in an attempt to simplify legislation. They were a step in the right direction, and we look forward to further steps. Our main concern about the treaty of Amsterdam is that the principle of subsidiarity will not be further developed and enhanced by protocol 7, but will be confused and taken backwards.
      If, as I suspect, the Minister disagrees with me, I hope that he will not in his reply simply give us his usual knockabout. I hope that he will respond to the legal points
      706
      that arise from the debate, and that he will be able to reassure the Opposition that the principle of subsidiarity is not merely left in the same place by article 7 but is improved and enhanced. I hope that he will be able to clarify the apparently contradictory nature of some paragraphs of article 7, and that he will reassure us that we do not need to press the amendment to a Division.
      Sir Michael Spicer: As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, subsidiarity was brought forward at the time of the treaty of Maastricht as some sort of quid pro quo for the enormous transfers of power under the treaty, and the tremendous dynamic, and potential, for further transfers of power that lay embedded in its core, particularly in respect of the single currency and the institutional arrangements for that. Even those who did not vote against Maastricht, and members of the Government of the day, were worried about this.
      The quid pro quo during the passage of Maastricht legislation was always, "But we have got subsidiarity." That was always the Government's core argument. I remember well that, throughout those debates, Tristan Garel-Jones, who I think is now a Lord, would say that we did not understand the arguments, that subsidiarity was what we had got out of the process. That was considered the enormous bonus that came out of the treaty of Maastricht. Two problems arise, to which we must return in this debate.
      First, as I tried to suggest in my earlier intervention, nothing has been achieved through subsidiarity. I think that the Government, and particularly the former Prime Minister, intended that some sort of reversal of power should be involved in the concept of subsidiarity. There was even talk of 25 per cent. of regulations being reconsidered under the heading of subsidiarity. None of that happened. There has not been one reversal. The reason is the acquis communautaire. The process of occupied fields, of the continuum of accretion of powers by the centre, is written into law through the treaty of Rome as amended over time.
      The second issue to which many of us referred during the passage of the Maastricht treaty was the fundamental question about subsidiarity: who determines what is to be subsidiary and what is to be centralised? That is always the crucial question in considering subsidiarity. Because of the acquis communautaire, it was clear to many of us that it would have to be determined at the centre. Power could not be devolved sui generis by people simply claiming power at the periphery.
      The very concept of subsidiarity inevitably meant greater centralisation—the very opposite of what it purported to be. A central authority had to determine what was to be parcelled out and what was to be retained at the centre.
      It was always thus, but at least under the treaty of Maastricht, the decision as to which authority at the centre was to determine what bits were to be parcelled out or to be retained was left a little indeterminate. At least there was an element of obscurity about that, which was something. In the treaty of Amsterdam, however, the matter is spelled out clearly.
      The amendments rightly try to remove the terms of the protocol, which suggest:
      "The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the

      707
      acquis communautaire and institutional balance: it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law".
      That protocol spells out clearly that, henceforth, it shall be the job of the European Court, under the terms of the acquis communautaire, and where it needs to do so, to develop law accordingly. The word "development" appears from an early stage, so we are not just talking about the application of existing laws, but the development of law. That has always been the case, but now it is spelled out under an intergovernmental conference treaty, and thus the European Court will move into sectors unoccupied by law in order to develop it. It will do so in this case with respect to the whole concept of subsidiarity.
      At last the matter has been spelled out clearly in black and white. Not only will matters be determined by the centre, which is the complete opposite of the devolution of powers, but they will be determined by treaty in the protocol, if the amendment is not passed, so that the body that shall determine such matters will be the court. The court shall do so even where the treaty does not specify that, because the court will have the power to develop law as laid down by the agreements of Governments if the treaty is ratified.
      In the past, in government, I have had disputes with my Front-Bench colleagues about subsidiarity, but today they are absolutely right. They have picked on exactly the provision that needs to be removed from the protocol. The consistent objectives of the previous Conservative Government and the current Labour one have been to devolve power. If they are true to themselves, the Government must remove that centralising element that will be incorporated in the treaty, if it is passed and ratified, and turned into law.
      My Front-Bench colleagues were absolutely right to table the three amendments that are related specifically to the acquis communautaire and the court's powers. I hope that the amendments will be pressed to a vote, because then at least we will have established that the Conservative party still believes in devolution.
      Mr. David Heath: New clause 22 stands in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
      The group of amendments under discussion strike at the heart of so much that we need to discuss within the workings of the European Union, and so much that has been obfuscated or avoided for many years. The concept of subsidiarity is one about which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee feel strongly. It is one that has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance for far too many years in Europe.
      Although the treaty of Maastricht included the word "subsidiarity" in text for the first time, I must agree with those who argue that it made little or no provision for making that concept a reality in the European Union. It has done nothing to make it an effective check on the centralising tendency within the EU.
      The concept of subsidiarity is not, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has said, simply an assertion of the primacy of national Parliaments. If it were, I have my doubts as to the extent to which my party would support it. Our definition of subsidiarity is quite different—it means giving power to the lowest available level, the nearest to the people. It therefore extends from the
      708
      EU seamlessly through national Governments to regional and local levels. The key to understanding subsidiarity is to appreciate that each of those levels is important. Each has a part to play in a properly regulated democracy.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: Presumably the hon. Gentleman is making a case for amendment No. 9, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), and which argues that the principle of subsidiarity should also apply under acquis communitaire. Here is a wonderful opportunity to reverse the ratchet of ever-increasing Community competence—an opportunity that has been lost by the Government in their negotiations.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I shall deal with the concept of acquis communautaire in a moment.
      My colleagues and I believe that a codification was long overdue, and that it was essential to include one in a form of protocol which gave some teeth to the loosely construed concept of subsidiarity, and made it effective. I disagree with the hon. Member for South-West Devon, the Conservative spokesman, about the European Court of Justice, to which Conservatives seem to have some sort of allergy. I do not believe that it is necessarily an inappropriate means of making the concept justiciable.
      Inevitably, there must be an adjudicator, and that adjudicator cannot be an appellant. Therefore, there must be means to weigh the arguments for and against a particular level of decision making being applied at a specific level.
      Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has said that Conservative Members suffer from an allergy to the European Court of Justice. Does he believe that that court is an impartial judicial authority, or does he believe that, in whole or in part, it is signed up to the process of European integration? That fact would necessarily influence its decisions.
      Mr. Heath: Any judicial system is only as good as the framework of law within which it works. That is precisely the argument that I am trying to enlarge upon now. It is important that we have a wide revision of the terms of subsidiarity, and that we extend that process as far as possible to the present arrangements governing acquis communautaire. It would be nonsense to start that process by considering matters from now on, and failing to consider retrospective ones.
      There is a strong case for applying the principles in the protocol to everything that takes place within the EU. I should like to see that principle extended below the level of the nation state to regional and local government. The Government's welcome decision at long last to accede to the European charter on local self-government is important, but I have yet to see any action deriving from that which gives greater responsibility for decision making to local government level in this country. Perhaps it is early days.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heath: I find it difficult to make a speech when I am constantly interrupted, but I will give way once again.
      Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has made a comment of profound significance in response to my

      709
      hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I want to make sure that it represents the Liberal party's position, because it is important. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal party now believes in the reversal and retrenchment of powers and the abolition of the acquis communautaire? That is of enormous, profound significance, and I was certainly unaware that that was the Liberal party's position.
      Mr. Heath: What we have consistently said and what we shall continue to say is that power should be exercised at the lowest available level. We have also consistently said that that is not necessarily the case at the moment, and there are many examples of the European Union acting at Community level on matters that could properly be decided at national or local level. Similarly, there are many examples of the UK national Government taking it upon themselves to make decisions that are better made at local level. One of the basic principles espoused by the Liberal Democrats is to devolve power to the lowest available level.
      The test of whether the new protocol on subsidiarity is not the number of cases that are taken to the European Court of Justice, but the extent to which the Commission is made to think again before taking action by the discipline of having to present cogent arguments for having taken a decision at European level which, according to the new protocol, have to be both qualitative and, where possible, quantitative. I hope that that discipline will bite, but I remain to be convinced that it will.
      It may be that we shall have to return to this matter at the next intergovernmental conference, because no effective action has resulted from it. At least the incorporation of the protocol gives justiciable grounds to hope that proper consideration will be given to these matters, and that there will be a change from what has become an established norm. If that is the case, it is wholly welcome, which is why I cannot accept the Conservative amendment—it throws out the baby with the bath water.
      It is important that we get the protocol incorporated into the treaty and into law. From then on, however, I want regular assessments in the House and elsewhere of how the principles of subsidiarity have been applied to matters that are of importance to Britain, both between the EU and Britain and within Britain. Our amendment seeks to make that a clear discipline on the Government, so that we will have debates on the Floor of the House that will enable us to take up cases where we believe the principle has not been acceded to by the European Union and challenge such action.
      I look forward to a body of law or a codification that will make clear what are the spheres of influence of the different levels of government, and to a time when we can be absolutely certain that matters that are properly considered nearer to the individual citizen will not be sucked up in the vortex of higher-level decision making.
      Mr. Tim Collins: We cannot allow the speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to pass without comment, because it was a remarkable speech. In the early part, we appeared
      710
      to have been taken up to the mountain and shown the promised land. The Liberal Democrats now seemed to be in favour of the repatriation of powers; of the concept that the exchange of powers between nation states and the European Union should not be solely one way, but that there should be the possibility of powers being returned after having been surrendered; and therefore of the acquis communautaire being regarded as not sacrosanct, but amendable.
      However, in the second half of the speech, and in the hon. Gentleman's responses to interventions from my hon. Friends, it became clear that—yet again and as usual—the Liberal Democrats were willing the ends but not the means, and that they would be unable to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      I support the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). I believe that the origins of the concept of subsidiarity in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) were entirely honourable and honest. They reflected a wish on his part, in its turn reflecting the wishes of the British people, that there should be an assertion in the European treaties of the natural primacy of the nation state as the democratic unit with which people are most comfortable and of which they are most supportive.
      At the time, that was not a naive view for my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister to take, given the context of turbulence in the markets and the politics of many European countries in 1992. That view was expressed by many other people, not least by the European Commission and by the French Government in the run-up to and during the Maastricht referendum of 1992.
      Sadly, it appears the comments made by the time by those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were perhaps a little more cynical and worldly wise in their assessment of the situation, have largely been proved true, as the assurances that were given by the British Government, by many other Governments and by the European Commission have not been readily translated into action since then.
      As we look to the protocol present in the Amsterdam treaty that we are debating today, we need to bear in mind that the concept of subsidiarity carries with it some difficulties. There is the word itself: when, in the commercial context, we hear of one company being a wholly-owned subsidiary of another, we accept that it is nothing less than a puppet of a higher authority, and not independent in any sense. We know that the concept of subsidiarity has its origins in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but one of that Church's central doctrines is that the person at its head is infallible.
      Mr. Cash: As a Catholic, I believe strongly in the tenet:
      "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
      I do not accept that, in any circumstances, we should allow the concept of subsidiarity based on theological considerations to interfere in the political process.
      Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I think is supporting what I am saying.

      711
      The other problem with subsidiarity is that, in some senses, it puts things the wrong way round—it assumes that power naturally stems from the top and therefore has to be devolved by some route to the bottom; whereas most of us who are natural democrats believe that power rests with the people and should be transferred upwards only with the consent of the people, for specific purposes and for a limited period, and not ceded in perpetuity.
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's eloquent flow, but, as he was developing his argument, I noticed the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) chuntering from a sedentary position words to the effect that subsidiarity implied decision making at the lowest level. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if that were the case and if the European Union regarded it as being the case, by now a regulation would have been repealed under the subsidiarity principle? The fact that none has been repealed suggests that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is somewhat confused.
      Mr. Collins: If the system had worked as it was designed to work, far more than one regulation would have been repealed by now, although I agree with my hon. Friend about the symbolic importance of the fact that not one has been repealed.
      In the UK context, the debate often centres on the evils of a federal system, so it is ironic that an undoubtedly federal constitution—that of the United States of America—contains a provision that is far stronger than anything in the EU treaties—that powers which are not specifically provided for the union reside with the individual states. The USA therefore has a federal union that, in many respects and on many legal bases, reserves much more power to the member states than the increasingly centralised EU constitution we are debating today.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said, whatever the arguments may have been about the practicalities or otherwise of what was set out by member states in 1992, it is clear that the provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam will make matters far worse, not better. They will mean that the text will be justiciable by the European Court of Justice, which court, rightly or wrongly, has an explicit integrationist agenda.
      My hon. Friend put his finger on another difficulty when he said that subsidiarity would now be subject, first, to the acquis communautaire, thereby explicitly ruling out those great ambitions that subsidiarity would be used as an engine of repatriating power, repealing directives and removing powers that were no longer valid or necessary; and, secondly, to article F4 of the treaty, which says that the Union will now have the right to arrogate to itself powers to deliver any of objectives of the treaty.
      The Amsterdam treaty further amends the objectives of the Maastricht treaty. We know that some phrases that, to the United Kingdom eye, can sometimes seem relatively innocuous, can store up immense long-term political difficulties. One such phrase is "ever closer union". I am sure that, when the UK Government first signed up to it, it was regarded as relatively innocent, but it has become an engine of integration across a range of issues.
      712
      5 pm
      If we consider that the provisions on subsidiarity will now be subject to the treaty's objectives, and that, after the Amsterdam treaty, the European Union has as one of its purposes to make its entire territory an area of "peace, security and justice", we begin to see that we are constructing a system in which the centralised institutions have carte blanche to do virtually anything they like.
      No one in the House, or beyond, would object to the abstract concepts of peace, security and justice—who would? But if someone says that he is creating an organisation which can take upon itself whatever powers it needs to deliver such wide-ranging and sweeping objectives as peace, security and justice, where the only brake on the exercise of those powers—the provisions on subsidiarity—is made explicitly subject to that all-embracing power and that all-encompassing provision, we begin to see that—to pursue the often-used cliché that compares the European Union to a train—the train is heading downhill rapidly.
      Not only is there no dead man's handle, but there is no brake. The subsidiarity provisions, which were only the lightest touch on the brake pedal, have been disconnected. The brake fluid has been removed and replaced with, at best, water and probably nothing else. As a result, we now have a rollercoaster that cannot be stopped.
      For those reasons, I believe that what started as a brave and noble experiment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister, to find some basis of agreement to create a brake on the process of European integration, has, owing to the present Government's exceptionally bad negotiating tactics, become a further strengthening of the motor of European integration. For that reason above all, this amendment, perhaps more than any other amendment being considered by the Committee, must be passed. Without it, all the assurances that we have heard from the Prime Minister and other Ministers will be entirely worthless.
      Mr. Bercow: Subsidiarity has been trailed over a long period as the saviour of British sovereignty. The reality of the past few years has demonstrated clearly that it is nothing of the sort. At best, it is a sop to those concerned with the preservation of self-government; at worst, it is a cloak that disguises or seeks to disguise the ever-increasing arrogation of powers to the central institutions of the European Community, now the European Union. It is a dangerous phenomenon that has been misrepresented.
      We can argue the toss for ever and a day about the motives that guided the treaty makers at the time of the treaty of Maastricht and whether they intended it to be a genuinely decentralising force or whether they thought that it was a cloak covering further centralisation. In the final analysis, the motives matter not; the results matter a great deal. We now have the opportunity, after a period of several years, to assess what has happened and to reach a conclusion.
      A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to the start of the debate, which, it has to be said, began with the negotiations over the Maastricht treaty. It is important to know what article 3b, which I describe as the infamous article 3b, of the Maastricht treaty said. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) referred to it and his comments bear repetition.

      713
      I shall share a private thought with the Committee today: the precise contents of article 3b have been imprinted on my mind for at least six years. I want to share them with the Committee. The article states:
      "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
      I never bought into the concept, although I greatly respect the integrity and good intentions of those who did. It always struck me as mealy-mouthed, insubstantial and almost certain to be abused.
      In order that the context of the debate about subsidiarity should be understood, let us remind ourselves of some of the reactions to it and the events that followed its inclusion in the treaty of Maastricht. Immediately after the signing of that treaty, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) expressed the belief that the subsidiarity provision of the treaty would be a great protection for the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that he meant it—"Hurrah," said he and others. They thought that it would stop the federalist engine speeding ahead. The truth is that even then—and I remember it—others were not so persuaded.
      I refer, for example, to no less an authority than Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, no friend of the anti-federalist cause, but a considerable voice on the subject of European union and integration. He described article 3b as a "prime example of gobbledegook". He said that to regard the formula chosen as a constitutional safeguard showed "great optimism". That was his considered judgment at the time; he believed that it would not protect the rights of nation states and the primacy of national self-government.
      Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only did Lord Mackenzie-Stuart say that in respect of the original proposals for subsidiarity, but he reaffirmed his view after the Birmingham European Council of 16 October 1992 in a letter that he wrote, either to The Times or The Daily Telegraph? He became even more concerned after that summit than he was before.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As I noticed Lord Mackenzie-Stuart becoming increasingly cynical about the provision, I too became increasingly cynical.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend might not be aware that some of us were persuaded to vote against the Maastricht treaty—albeit in my case, only at Third Reading—because of our experience in Brussels. In March 1993, the then Secretary General of the Commission, a British civil servant called Williamson, told British Members of Parliament from both sides of the House—I know that Labour Members were equally upset and astonished—that everyone knew that the British had overplayed subsidiarity to a ridiculous extent and that it was not even worth talking about.
      Mr. Bercow: I was not aware of that important fact, but I have now been enlightened by my hon. Friend, and his comments do not surprise me one jot. The sheer
      714
      cynicism and deviousness of many of those who sought to fob us off with that supposed concession at the time know no bounds.
      There was, ultimately, a test of the robustness, the virility, of the subsidiarity provision. That test came on 12 March 1996 when this country heard—I hope with a deep sense of shame—the opinion of the Advocate General in relation to the working time directive. I am delighted to see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), has raised his eyes from his notes and is paying attention.
      What the Advocate General said was a damning indictment of our gullibility in the first instance. On 12 March 1996, the Advocate General gave his opinion on the attempted annulment of the working time directive. He said:
      "In view of the fact that the objective provided for in article 118a is harmonisation, there is no doubt that the aim of the contested directive can be better achieved by action at Community level than by action at national level."
      He was putting it on the line, so clearly that no one could doubt it, that it was always intended that such matters should be determined supranationally, not nationally. Therefore, those who entertained the hope that we could preserve sovereignty in respect of our domestic working practices were to be disappointed.
      Many people never supposed for a moment that we could do so. For example, Lord Tebbit of Chingford was never in any doubt about that. He was perceptive about it from the outset. He knew perfectly well that the subsidiarity doctrine would be abused—and sure enough it was, to the extent that we could not even control our own working hours. That is what happened to subsidiarity then.
      We now move on in the debate to phase 2—to the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. My hon. Friends will have noticed that the new buzz-word is "proportionality." The objective is not very different: to convey an impression of reasonableness while offering nothing substantive of the sort. It is, in that sense, a slightly preferable word to "subsidiarity", which—for all except those as intellectually distinguished as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—is difficult to understand or interpret. "Proportionality" seems a fairly obvious word and it conveys an impression of reasonableness which is not likely to be matched in practice.
      I emphasise the point: under the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, in the treaty of Amsterdam, the doctrines of the occupied field and of the acquis communautaire are established as sacrosanct and not to be challenged. There is no suggestion that anything would be allowed which would override the primacy of those doctrines, which are dear to the heart of every European federalist.
      Although some of us were sceptical of the likely effectiveness of subsidiarity at the time of the treaty of Maastricht, some federalists did not want to make even that concession because they were petrified that it would lead to a decentralisation of power. Therefore, this time they were determined to get their own back: to emphasise beyond doubt that central forces within the Community would hold sway, that the acquis communautaire was safe and that the doctrine of the occupied field was not under threat. They succeeded.

      715
      Other hon. Members have referred to what the protocol says, and it is important that the debate should respect and reflect the words of the protocol. What does it say?
      "The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full"—
      not in part, but in full—
      "of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance".
      I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is listening carefully. The protocol continues:
      "it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national"
      law
      "and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'."
      Therefore no one can say, "Ah, 'tis unclear; there is scope for optimism," or, in future, "The wool was pulled over our eyes." Neither of those things is or could ever be true. It is clear that the Community is to hold sway.
      It must be recorded that there are currently six Labour Members in the Chamber for the consideration of a matter of the most momentous magnitude for the future of this country. A Government Whip has now left the Chamber. Indeed, I thought for a moment that two representatives of Her Majesty's Whips Office were about to absent themselves from the Chamber because they were more interested in the minutiae of Government whipping than in the significance of subsidiarity provisions for the future status and self-governing capacity of our nation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly referred to the substantive paragraph of the protocol, section (2), which I just quoted, which talks about the way in which the protocol will be applied. It is important also to refer to section (3), which reinforces and complements section (2). It emphasises the fact that in no sense is the protocol a challenge to Community power. Indeed, as hon. Members will see when they study it, it adds:
      "Community action within the limits of its powers"
      may
      "be expanded where circumstances so require".
      Therefore, not only shall we not get a net decentralisation of power under the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol, but there is scope for further centralisation.
      Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Bercow: Let the Minister not pretend ignorance. Let him not say subsequently that he did not know. He is seeking to drive through the House, under guillotine, a treaty the effect of which will almost certainly be to increase Community power and to diminish the cause of national self-government. That is the reality.
      If the Minister disagrees with that thesis—if he has any serious counter to it, bar the knockabout badinage that has come to characterise the sub-standard responses to the debate that we have suffered to date—let him now say what his response is, but it is not good enough for him to dismiss our anxieties. Still less is it good enough for the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—who
      716
      I believe feels pained that he is unable vocally to contribute to our debates, and so contents himself with taunting us by showing the disgusting and vulgar, loud European Union socks that he is wearing—to sit and be self-satisfied about it. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, with portentous consequences for the future of our country.
      Mr. Cash: Smelly socks.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) makes a mildly impolite, but possibly apposite, reference to smelly socks. I say to him, in all candour, that the smell of the socks is nothing like as great as the stench of the course of European federalism, from the effects of which the country is suffering. I am sure that we can agree on that point.
      The protocol says several things of interest. It says that Community matters shall be defined. Matters for the Community shall have to meet certain tests. A couple of optimistic or naive—or both—Labour Back Benchers may have some hope that the effects of that provision will be minimised, because Community action can be taken only if it meets certain criteria. What are those criteria?
      First, we are told that, in order for action by the Community institutions to be taken, an issue should be "transnational" in character. The problem with that is that there is no absolute definition of what constitutes transnational. I would argue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the shadow Foreign Secretary would argue, that the regulation of working hours is not a matter of transnational concern but a legitimate preoccupation of elected British politicians in the British legislature. On the other hand—genuinely and with good motives—many Labour Members may contend that it is a legitimate concern of the European institutions.
      I do not believe that supranational regulation of working hours is necessary for an effective single market, but some Labour Members might. I simply point out that there is no natural, obvious, broadly acceptable definition of what constitutes transnational. If the Minister is planning to set our minds at rest by saying, "Ah, but it must be a matter of transnational concern; the Community cannot by its own fiat pluck something out of the air and say that it is a matter of transnational concern on which the Community must legislate," I reply that the case is not proven.
      The second point is that, in order for Community action to be taken, it should be necessary for the requirements of the treaty to be fulfilled. That gives Conservative Members no succour either, for all that that requires is that those who want maximum Community action should draft clauses that would obviously require such action; alternatively, they should draft clauses to the treaty that could allow for such action.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale alluded to that point a few moments ago. He referred to noble but often sweeping objectives which are enshrined in Community law and in treaty obligations. Precisely how they are to be fulfilled is left open. Often it is left open because member states know that there are genuine differences between them over how it would be interpreted. We, the British, are usually patted on the head and told not to worry because nothing concrete is at stake—these are general declarations, in accordance with

      717
      the continental approach to law making, not the British insistence on specificity. Of course, at a later stage, these obligations are referred to as justification for centralised action and Community diktat. If we object, we are told that we signed the treaty and the words clearly mean what the majority of countries say they mean. So when the Community legislates, we will have no success if we try to object.
      Thirdly, we are told, in relation to this provision, that there should be benefits in scale or effect as a result of Community action. There is no argument to be had there, either. As far as we are concerned, the disbenefits in scale and effect of the application of the working time directive across the EU should have prevented its adoption—but they did not.
      It is therefore a wholly ineffective attempt at reassurance if any representative of the Government says that there are tests that have to be met before Community action can be taken. There is none that is absolute. There is none that is dependable. There is none that offers encouragement to those Conservatives who believe that we have been consistently misled, let down and betrayed by the process of EU treaty making.
      Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech, but I want to add a word about tests. We British have always thought that our legal arrangements allowed for specificity, whereas the Roman legal system is based more on general objectives. Indeed, we have often been conned by that difference. The protocol specifically states, however, that the matter should be subject to the general objectives of the treaty. That in itself underlines the importance of what my hon. Friend is saying.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is correct. The federalists have given the game away by saying that the satisfaction of key treaty objectives is what is required to justify Community action—thereby admitting that, as long as they can invoke the high-falutin' terms of the treaty, they can get on and do their business. They feel no need to justify themselves beyond that.
      What is the final sop that the treaty offers those of us who are concerned to preserve self-government? It is that, under the terms of the protocol, the Commission will be required to
      "consult widely before proposing legislation, and wherever appropriate, publish consultation documents."
      Is that not enough to warm the cockles of the heart? Is that not a blessed reassurance as we debate the contents of the Amsterdam treaty? Does it not cause the hardest-hearted Euro-sceptic in the Chamber—I look eagerly to find my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), only to find that he has momentarily absented himself—to relent? Nothing of the kind, for it constitutes no check on the legislative ambitions of the Commission. It merely represents a challenge to its ingenuity.
      Although I deplore the impact of the Commission's activities on the affairs of this country over a long period, I do not think that the people in the Commission are
      718
      stupid. It is always wise to know one's enemy. I am in no doubt that the Commission is packed with highly intelligent, dedicated officials—
      Mr. MacShane: Like Neil Kinnock?
      Mr. Bercow: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is looking at me in that way because he is a disappointed man. I do not know whether he has ever applied for a job in the Commission and failed to get it, and so is critical of the intellectual powers of Commission officials.
      Mr. Rammell: I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Do you not begin to understand that whatever views you hold—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine himself to parliamentary language and stop saying "you"?
      Mr. Rammell: I apologise, Mr. Lord. Whatever views one holds on the pace and development of European integration, describing the Commission as the enemy just inflames the debate. It does not begin to clarify the issues; indeed, it is a disservice to the issues that we are debating.
      Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's sincerity: I disagree with his point. Let me be explicit. I believe it necessary to have a central power in the European Community. One can argue the toss also about, say, the Single European Act—but I chose my words advisedly. I referred as I did to the Commission not because I have any personal hatred of, or contempt for, the officials who serve it but because I believe in judging by results.
      The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) is a regular attender at the proceedings of this Committee; I know that he has well-formed, strongly held opinions on European integration. I disagree with him usually, but I respect him. In the Labour party generally these days, however, there is a preoccupation with form and an inattention to substance. I am concerned about substance, not about being polite for the sake of it. I focus on what the Commission has done to this country. I happen to believe that it has been highly damaging to this country over some years. I also assert that this country has frequently been misled, as often deliberately as accidentally, by the Commission. That is the rationale behind the words that I used.
      I said a moment ago that the requirement to consult widely and to publish consultation documents whenever possible constituted no check on the legislative ambitions of the Commission: it was merely a challenge to its ingenuity. My anxiety is that it will want to meet that challenge. It will beaver away, working ferociously hard to identify new areas in which it believes the Community should act.
      Again and again we return to the point over which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome skimmed. When there is a dispute, who decides? If we disagree, who is the judge? The answer is: the European Court of Justice. That is the point to which, it seems, the Minister has no meaningful or intelligible response. If he has one now,

      719
      I shall happily give way to him. I pause to see whether this distinguished representative of Her Majesty's Government will rise from his seat to favour the House with his wisdom. The answer is that he will not, just as he failed to do the other day.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: It is rather offensive for the Minister to be constantly invited to contribute in that way, when the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the debate will be replied to.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Bercow: That is the most bizarre observation that I have heard uttered in the House since 1 May 1997. The notion that it is impolite to ask a Minister to respond there and then to a point strikes me as peculiar. We are, after all, engaged in a debate.
      The Minister is a pleasant fellow, but there is just a chance—I put it no higher than that—that he might forget to respond to some points. To suggest that he would deliberately choose to ignore certain points would be a gross discourtesy, and I make no such suggestion. His forgetfulness would be entirely inadvertent—the consequence of a 15-hour day and the effect of his long run round Hyde park corner in the morning, which might cause him to neglect to respond to our arguments on subsidiarity. The other day the Minister did respond to a point from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), but he did so poorly. I would hope that he could do so better this time.
      I shall focus finally on the Government's attitude to date to the subsidiarity protocol. To my mind, the Government have capitulated to the European Union on that front. Three points illustrate the argument forcefully.
      First, the Government have contented themselves with the protocol. They have made no objection whatever to the fact that this far-reaching proposal is enshrined only in a protocol within the treaty, on pages 84 to 86, if memory serves me correctly. The notion that a measure with such profound ramifications for the future self-government of this country should be confined to a protocol, without a murmur of protest from the Minister, is unacceptable. It is unworthy of a Minister to commend to the House such a lamentable capitulation to the European Union.
      Did the Minister even try to ensure that something better was on offer? Did he race—we all know that he runs regularly and fast—after his opposite numbers in the EU and argue with them about it? Nay, there is no evidence that he did anything of the kind. He was content to accept a protocol further to consolidate the power relationship between the European Community and Britain, in favour of the former.
      The second point about the Government's capitulation is that they have effectively ganged up with the European Court of Justice against the national constitutions of member states. Germany, France and Denmark have consistently argued that their national written constitutions supersede treaty obligations. The Community now contends otherwise. It seems that the British Labour Government want to support the Community and attack those who depend on their national constitutions. That is unwise. We have no such national constitution. Others do, and they depend on it for the preservation of their sovereignty. It is wrong for the Minister to line up with the ECJ in that way.
      720
      Thirdly, the Prime Minister has made no protest about the protocol. If the Minister wishes to argue to the contrary, no doubt he will rise, notwithstanding the exhortations of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). The Minister will be anxious always and everywhere to defend the effectiveness of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Pope: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Bercow: I might have known. There is no subsidiarity in the Whips Office, but one is told that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is in the Blairite faction, as opposed to the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), who is in the Brown faction. [Interruption.] That is amply confirmed by the comments of other hon. Members.
      If the Minister wishes to rise to defend the Prime Minister, he may. Our understanding is simple. The Prime has in no way criticised the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol. My recollection—I shall be advised otherwise if I am mistaken—is that in his statement of 18 June to the House following the Amsterdam conference, the Prime Minister hardly referred to the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty. He alluded to many other points, and attempted to sell it as a great deal for Britain. Whether, in skipping through the subsidiarity provision, he accidentally missed the significance of pages 84 to 86, we are none the wiser. Whether it was the broad-brush approach, or whether he was so anxious to say, "I have to say," that he did not manage to focus on subsidiarity, I know not. [Interruption.] It was, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) points out, a plot, the details of which my right hon. and learned Friend may wish to expose later. The Prime Minister had nothing serious to say on the subject of subsidiarity then, and he has not since.
      The truth can be simply stated. The power of the European Union over the affairs of this country has grown. That power is growing. Under the provisions of the treaty and the subsidiarity protocol, it will continue to grow. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the time will come, and it will not be long from now, when that power and the drift in the direction of more Community power will need to be arrested and reversed. If it is not and we let down future generations, that betrayal will not be forgotten and it will not be forgiven.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am somewhat abashed to be following the precedent of my three hon. Friends, whose eloquence was beyond all measure greater than mine.
      Mr. MacShane: No, no.
      Mr. Letwin: In this case, genuinely, yes.
      I shall deal with much slighter and more particular points, relating to the way in which protocol 7 has been drafted. I draw the Committee's attention to the concept of proportionality. Most of the discussion has concentrated on the notion of subsidiarity, although my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned proportionality.

      721
      Proportionality is described in the first paragraph as a principle
      "according to which any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty",
      as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some of us have sat for many hours in one of the European Standing Committees, where a series of directives have come before us that have been defended by Ministers. We have frequently asked whether the measure in question went beyond what was necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty. On every occasion, we have been assured that the objectives of the treaty were sufficiently grand in scope to justify the particular measure in hand.
      An inspection of the entire range of possible directives, going far beyond the directives that have so far come before us—directives of huge scope and imagination—would reveal that the objectives in the treaty, which have, of course, been enlarged, as my hon. Friends have repeatedly pointed out, are sufficiently great to justify them.
      There is no challenge in the challenge that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggested had been posed to the Commission—no ingenuity is required—because the objectives are so generally couched that brake in terms of conformity with objectives, like the proportionality brake, becomes devoid of meaning and application. We will never, I speculate, find a case where the Commission proposes a directive or considers the proposition of a directive and then discovers that the rule of proportionality affects the formation or the application of that directive. That is why I suspect that the attention of the Committee has been almost wholly upon the principle of subsidiarity.
      There is a great difference between the way in which proportionality is described in the protocol and the treatment of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is linked quite specifically not to the objectives of the treaty but, in paragraph (5), to the objectives of the proposed action. It might be thought that, somehow or other, that narrowed matters and gave us at least the beginning of some check on the development of Community action.
      It might be thought in the case of a particular directive—I shall choose an uncontroversial example, such as the ban on tobacco advertising—that, if we could show that the objectives of the proposed action could not be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the nation state, we could throw out the directive. The wording of paragraph (5) gives us some hope that that aim could be achieved. It replicates the wording of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, to his great credit, is able to remember. Even if one has an impoverished memory and is required to read it, one can see that the article is couched in those terms.
      My hon. Friends have pointed out that much of that hope is removed by paragraph (2) of protocol 7, which makes it abundantly clear that, whatever argument we might make about the tobacco advertising directive, it could never be effective if it could be shown to be based on an existing acquis communautaire. That removes the first leg of a possible argument. Secondly, we would not be able to make the argument if it could be shown that the directive in some way cohered with, was based upon
      722
      or sprang out of the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding relationships between the Community and the states.
      We might find also that we could not make the argument because it might be shown that in a particular case it was necessary for the Union to arm itself with the directive to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. That is the point to which I shall refer specifically this afternoon. There is a great conceptual link between the notion of subsidiarity based on the objective of a proposed action and the notion of subsidiarity as something to be applied only in light of the ability of the Union to give itself the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.
      Linking those two notions makes it clear what the protocol on subsidiarity, phrased in those terms, is telling us: a directive must not be challenged on the basis of subsidiarity if it can be shown that the directive in question is a carrying through of a policy adopted by the Community and is therefore necessary to the carrying through of that policy. Upon reflection, one can see that that is a wholly remarkable state of affairs. We have a protocol that purports to limit Community action, the genuine meaning of which is that, if the Community adopts a certain policy, it is reasonable for it to adopt a directive because it will ipso facto cohere with its objectives in having adopted that policy. Having adopted a policy and a directive coherent with that policy, we can say nothing against the directive on the grounds of subsidiarity.
      If I knew how to construct brakes on my behaviour that consisted of my informing the police that it was legitimate for me to do anything that cohered with an objective that was a matter of my policy, I should be a happy man. The fact is that, in general, when one tries to create legislative constraints, one couches them in terms other than those that depend entirely on the proposition that whatever Mr. X wishes to do becomes legitimate by virtue of his wishing to do it.
      I am genuinely puzzled, because, even if Ministers were profoundly dozy during the Amsterdam negotiations—we have evidence of that from other sources relating to different parts of the treaty—I cannot believe that the Foreign Office does not contain anyone who is able to engage in the construction that I have just outlined.
      Mr. Cash: I do not wish to disturb in any way the brilliance of my hon. Friend's analysis, but does he recall the words of Lewis Carroll in "Through the Looking-Glass", who said,
      "a word …means just what I choose it to mean …The question is, which is to be master—that's all."?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Letwin: I have learnt much about treaties at the feet of my hon. Friend. He is right in his implication that the situation is even worse than I have portrayed: if the words were not so clear, the European Court would be the arbiter of their meaning—and we can guess how that arbitration would run.
      However, the strange thing is that my hon. Friend may not be quite correct, because the words are clear—even to someone of a sceptical inclination—and they must have been clear to members of the Foreign Office who were

      723
      supposedly supporting Ministers at the negotiations. Therefore, the full meaning of those words must have been communicated to the Minister, to the Foreign Secretary and to the Prime Minister. They must be aware of this state of affairs. If they are, it is strange that they have not told the British public that subsidiarity now means that any directive may be adopted so long as it coheres with the objectives of the European Union.
      That gives me genuine cause for concern that I may have misinterpreted the protocol. I genuinely hope that, for once—and not as a debating point—the Minister will answer that point. I hope that he will provide some reassurance and confirm that my interpretation is fallacious. If it is not, we have buried utterly the concept of subsidiarity—alas, the concept of proportionality was never alive; so we shall have two dead concepts and a protocol that has no meaning. I fear that my hon. Friends are right and that, at worst—in this case, the worst is the truth—we will be left with a cloak for the expansionist intentions of the European Union.
      Mr. Blunt: I shall try, in my rather inadequate manner, to pick up some of the brilliant points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The first concerns the opportunity, presented to the Government in the conduct of the negotiations, that has been lost so lamentably.
      In introducing the concept of subsidiarity—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred so effectively—my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, played the French and the other continentals at their own game. He introduced an idea that, surrounded initially by warm and unobjectionable language, meant very little in terms of treaty obligations at Maastricht. However, Britain's ultimate objective was to develop a line of policy, translated into treaty requirements, that had some teeth.
      Tragically, the Government changed on 1 May, and the opportunity that had been presented in the conduct of treaty negotiations at Amsterdam was lost. The ball was passed to the Labour party, which promptly dropped it. There was an opportunity to put into the treaty language on subsidiarity that meant that the application of subsidiarity to the acquis communautaire would have real teeth. It appears that that policy is supported by the Liberal Democrats. In a sense, that is itself sadness enough.
      At the same time, in the conduct of the negotiations, we saw an example of where the French and other continentals were successful at the same game in a different sphere; the defence negotiations. There was language about eventual common defence that could mean anything. It was happily signed up to as, in a sense, a concession to an idea that had no teeth at Maastricht. It was turned into the progressive framing of defence policy and an absolute commitment to progress. Our partners in Europe will be able to ask, "Where is the progress if there is none?" and hold us to the terms of the treaty.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset talked about the concept of proportionality. It seems bizarre to have a treaty provision that defines something as unobjectionable as some sense of proportion in terms of
      724
      what the actions of the Community should be. Should not that apply to the vast majority of the way in which the Union works? Only, perhaps, if an organisation is rapidly taking on some of the characteristics of "Alice in Wonderland"—to judge by some of its treaty provisions—will we be in this place debating a design of the European Union.
      My central point is about use of language. The ideas of subsidiarity and proportionality are meant to sound reasonable—I return to the point made so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. The trouble with the conduct of much of the European debate—not only the treaty of Amsterdam, but over decades—has been the amount of disingenuous debate and information that has been put into the public domain.
      European integration is a perfectly honourable idea. I respect people who hold the cause dear for the highest of motives. If only they were prepared to make their case with honesty, clarity and vigour to the people of our country, we could engage in a proper debate about the merits of the argument.
      Some of us fear that the process of integration is a danger to the entire European project and the achievement of peace between nations since the end of the second world war. We fear that progress towards economic and monetary union is coming far too fast and far too soon, with the people of the United Kingdom—certainly—blissfully unaware of the nature of the dangers of that process and of the change that will take place in their politics if the train is allowed to continue along its track.
      When the Minister replies, I ask him to treat the Committee with respect, to use language fairly and honestly and to be clear about the Government's exact objectives. I ask him not to cloak concessions and agreements made at Amsterdam with disingenuous language that is designed to suggest that the agreements are something that they are not.
      Mr. McWalter: I did not intend to speak, but it might be helpful to introduce some counter-balance to some of the things that have been said. A claim being made for the Government's case is that words are increasingly being manipulated to mean whatever we decide to make them mean. The expression, which has been quoted, comes, the Committee might be interested to know, from Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass" who said that words can mean whatever we take them to mean or whatever we decide them to mean. When Alice objects to that proposition, Humpty Dumpty replies that it is not a matter of language—the question is
      "which is to be master".
      The debate has an "Alice in Wonderland" feel. Opposition Members' arguments boil down to the expression "acquis communautaire". It is the pivot for everything that they have said. The willingness to co-operate and work together, as understood by members of the European Community, seems strange and hostile to Conservative Members. They cannot begin to connect with the idea that we might want to have a constructive and co-operative relationship with our European neighbours.

      725
      That being so, they say that we are faced with—well, it cannot be a Trojan horse because it is French—some sort of Parisian horse, or whatever, that allows us—
      Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McWalter: I shall give way shortly. Please let me get started.
      The argument of Conservative Members is that others are to be allowed to run roughshod over all issues that involve national sovereignty and the independent action that we as members of the United Kingdom would want.
      The issues before us have many more aspects than those outlined by Conservative Members. A first-order problem concerns the way in which our Europe and our country operate. For example, the problem of acid rain is obviously transnational. One country's pollution can be another's acid rain. When I read protocol 7(5), I find, basically, a provision that expresses how important it is to justify Community action and to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity should be met.
      The guidelines state that "the issue under consideration" should have
      "transnational aspects which cannot be satisfactorily regulated by action by Member States".
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. McWalter: I was asked to allow an intervention earlier; I shall take that one now.
      Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is basing his speech on a false premise. He is saying that Conservative Members who are concerned about the progress of European integration are against co-operation with our partners in Europe. We are passionately in favour of co-operation and partnership with our partners in Europe. It is we who are grounding these objectives in their practicality. The developments that the hon. Gentleman is supporting will place an onerous burden on the individual nations of Europe and therefore destroy co-operation and partnership between the nations of Europe. That is the danger.
      I would argue that my right hon. and hon. Friends who take the view that I have outlined are, in a sense, more passionately pro-European than those who are calling for European integration. Down the road of integration lies the end of the European project.
      Mr. McWalter: The problem is that voluntaryism is often insufficient. I take up the second part of paragraph (5), which refers to where
      "actions by Member States" might
      "significantly damage Member States' interests".
      One state may decide that it is rather cheap to produce something in a way that causes pollution and a neighbouring state might decide that it would like some action to be taken to prevent that happening. We need to have a sense of voluntary co-operation, and it is clear that the extent of it is extremely important.
      726
      We try to get as much as we can by way of voluntary co-operation, but the European Community commits us to membership of a framework within which we must take seriously the fact that some individual member states' actions should be restricted by the greater union of states.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McWalter: I shall move on to the third section of the paragraph before I give way. It states:
      "action at Community level would produce clear benefits by reason of its scale or effects compared with action at the level of the Member States."
      The whole package makes sense in respect of issues such as acid rain. It is not simply an absurd recipe, as was suggested earlier, whereby the only limits and constraints on Community action are sui generis, or part of the treaty itself.
      Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's mask has slipped. He spoke soothingly about the virtues of co-operation. He then discovered that Conservative Members objected not to co-operation, but to unwarranted imposition. Citing acid rain is an easy case, but it does not prove the point. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the European Court of Justice, in foisting upon us its preference for the working time directive, was co-operating with the United Kingdom or telling her what to do?
      6 pm
      Mr. McWalter: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that acid rain is an easy case, clearly he knows more than I do about the solution to such issues. The problem of acid rain requires concerted and difficult transnational agreements that are not voluntary but need to be binding in the interests of our planet. We are a long way short of achieving that. The heart of the issue between Conservative Members and ourselves is often where to draw the line.
      The hon. Gentleman clearly agrees that the business of not exporting pollution requires effective transnational agencies, but some of us are of the view—it is enshrined in the earliest drafts of the treaty of Rome—that anti-competitive practices, for example, are also important. If one nation adopts a framework for its employment law that seeks to export not its pollution but its unemployment, that may be of equal concern under the competition rules.
      Sir Michael Spicer: The problem with the acid rain argument, which is often used to support the line of thinking in which the hon. Gentleman is currently engaged, is that most acid rain comes from non-European countries.
      Mr. McWalter: Particularly since the reunification of Germany, a great deal of it comes from European countries, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.
      Mr. Bercow: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and with interest. He refers to anti-competitive action: that action is unacceptable; it is therefore necessary for the Community to take a central

      727
      view and implement a Community policy in the context of the working time directive. In principle, what is the difference between that and a common taxation system? Although it seems unlikely under a Labour Government, if the United Kingdom has lower taxation rates than other European Union countries, is that not anti-competitive? In principle, does the hon. Gentleman rule out the adoption of a common direct taxation system within the European Union—yes or no?
      Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows that, ultimately, all such matters need to be decided by partners in the European project trying to decide where that borderline lies.
      Mr. Bercow: What does that mean?
      Mr. McWalter: There is no need to go mad about it. We accept that there is scope for genuine debate about where the lines should be drawn. Some member states may take the view that what we decide to do about immigration policy, for example, is a Europewide matter. The British Government have not taken that view. We have the right to take the view that it is not a matter of European concern. The Opposition should grant the Government some generosity of spirit about the way in which they want to work for the British national interest within an effective European Union that can do much to improve the conditions in the world economy.
      Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that David Begg and a number of others wrote an interesting paper about subsidiarity in the context of pollution and transnational matters entitled "Making Sense of Subsidiarity: How much centralisation for Europe?" they wrote:
      "The quality of water drunk by a Dane does not change the welfare of a Spaniard, and there is prima-facie evidence that this directive flies in the face of the principle of subsidiarity."
      Furthermore, when the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities considered the matter, it concluded:
      "while the case against some aspects of the bathing water directive on subsidiarity grounds is well-founded, it may be politically unrealistic to look for the repeal of the directive."
      In other words, there was a sense of alarm and despondency among members of the House of Lords Select Committee, including some distinguished jurists, because they knew perfectly well that, although there was every reason to repudiate the bathing water directive, politically, it would go through. That completely undermines the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Mr. McWalter: I am about to conclude, but I shall address the point. In any loosely liberal political system, there is always an ebb and flow between the different participants in any power regime. Sometimes powers are given to central authorities, sometimes they are removed. On the basis of the conduct of the previous British Government, many people might have concluded that the consolidation of power by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister was so excessive that there would never again be the prospect of effective devolution or impetus to local government. Luckily, however, there was a rising up against that philosophy, and, as a result, we now have a Government who are committed to devolution, to local
      728
      government and to empowering people to take more control over their own lives. What applies in Britain also applies in Europe.
      I thank the House for listening to me, and I conclude by saying that this is an excellent treaty and I am very happy to support the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: Article 3b of the Maastricht treaty and the rubbish that that generated, the con trick that it involved and its amplification under the Amsterdam treaty, show that, effectively, member states are saying, "We can do what we like, but we shall wrap it up with minimal reservations so long as the lawyers are well paid for dancing on the head of a pin." Basically, the whole issue boils down to that.
      We have heard some superb speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I pay tribute to them, as they addressed the heart of the matter, arguing the case intellectually and with reason. In the context of the development of the European Union, for practical purposes nothing has been changed by the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty, although, where Maastricht ran into difficulties, there have been spurious attempts to produce alternative arguments and to put a spin on it.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pointed out, the acquis communautaire lies at the heart of the problem. It is spelled out in article B of the treaty, which states:
      "The Union shall set itself the following objectives:"
      including
      "to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the Community."
      When one puts forward proposals to ensure the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the community, no notice is taken.
      The treaty goes on:
      "The objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, as defined in Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European Community."
      That means that we shall continue as before. We set out certain objectives, and everything continues inexorably towards a process that includes the acquis communautaire, the ratchet effect and the fact that nothing that has been decided can be challenged. As my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale, for Buckingham and for West Dorset have pointed out, the moment that we raise any objections, we are thrown back on to the objectives of the treaty. Inevitably, we go in a complete circle.
      The process is a disgrace, because it puts forward, in words set out in a treaty that are justiciable and subject to the European Court of Justice, arrangements that are self-fulfilling and self-denying. On the one hand, they set out the objectives, but on the other they purport to give rise to the possibility of questioning them. However, questioning takes us back to the objectives, which include the application by the European Court of Justice of original objectives that go back to the intentions incorporated in the Maastricht treaty and, in many

      729
      respects, before that. That is a continuous process. The more one looks at the protocol, the more obvious that becomes.
      The objectives of the treaty are not what is necessary to achieve the kind of Europe that is essential for harmonious relations into the next century. The treaty says:
      "In exercising the powers conferred on it, each institution shall ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is complied with. It shall also ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality".
      As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, that takes us back to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty, which are set out in the preamble. It is well known that the Court of Justice has to have regard to the preamble to decide how to interpret the provisions. That is different from the way in which we have interpreted law in the United Kingdom. We come back again and again to the circular argument.
      Paragraph (3) of the protocol says:
      "The principle of subsidiarity does not call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice."
      So we get another circular argument within the circular argument. The Court of Justice has to prevail if the question arises whether it should have jurisdiction. The whole thing is gobbledegook, as Lord Mackenzie-Stuart pointed out. It makes nonsense of the process of European integration.
      I do not understand how the Minister can justify the provisions. The worst of it is that, after going through all the arguments and making attempts to persuade, no further argument can be engaged in. What do we do now, given that we get no answers from the Minister and no arguments from Labour? There is only one Labour Member present on the Back Benches. We are going nowhere—[Interruption.] Well, there are some on the left- hand side of the Chamber who are doing and saying nothing. We have to take more effective and immediate action to stop the nonsense that is going on.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall be brief. Indeed, my contributions to the Committee have been becoming increasingly brief. I should like to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about the circular argument.
      The protocol says:
      "Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept and should be applied in the light of the objectives set out in the Treaty. It allows Community action within the limits of its powers to be expanded where circumstances so require, and conversely, to be restricted or discontinued where it is no longer justified."
      That is what we had all understood subsidiarity to mean—powers could be given back. That is what it says clearly in the second part of the third paragraph of the protocol. However, the first part of that paragraph says:
      "The criteria referred to in the second paragraph of Article 3b of the Treaty shall relate to areas for which the Community does not have exclusive competence."
      In other words, subsidiarity means control over what we have not given to the Community—it is what is left. We must enjoy it while we still have it.
      Mr. Doug Henderson: The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) should enjoy it quickly.
      730
      In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), let me say the Government cannot accept the amendment, but I hope to announce, in a future debate this evening, a review of the way in which matters discussed at the Council of Ministers are reported. I hope that that will cover issues of subsidiarity.
      We have had an interesting debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) was able to intervene. He provided some necessary balance, making some important points on the sensible provisions in the treaty.
      The debate started with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who is not in his place, saying that the Conservative party believed in devolution. That is an interesting revelation. I was not aware of that policy change. We have heard a lot of arguments about subsidiarity in the European Union, but we have not heard much from the Conservatives about subsidiarity within a nation state, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out. If the Conservatives are to be consistent, they must examine subsidiarity not only in the European Union, but in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Mr. Henderson: I shall not give way at the moment, because I fear that I may run out of time.
      We have witnessed an internal debate in the Conservative party on the provisions. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whose contributions we look forward to in every debate, said that, when he was a special adviser to Jonathan Aitken in the previous Government, he felt that he had been fobbed off with the provisions on subsidiarity that were drawn up at Edinburgh.
      Mr. Bercow: If the Minister wants to make a debating point, he ought at least to get the chronology right. The original subsidiarity proposal was enshrined in the treaty of Maastricht in 1991. I had the pleasure to serve as the special adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1995. Get it right, Minister.
      Mr. Henderson: It is a minor but interesting point whether the hon. Gentleman was fobbed off before he worked for the coin of Jonathan Aitken or while he was working for the coin of Jonathan Aitken.
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister should be prepared to send the Excalibur file of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to him so that it can be checked.
      Hon. Members: It is too big.
      Mr. Henderson: It is too big, indeed. I think that I shall leave that matter, lest I give away Government secrets.
      The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—I have no doubt that he, too, will correct me if I paraphrase him inaccurately—made the point that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had the right intention on subsidiarity. He would say that, as someone who was—I think—the right hon. Gentleman's press secretary at that time, although I say

      731
      sincerely that the hon. Gentleman's loyalty is respected. His point was that the subsidiarity provisions operated under the Conservative Government had not worked or been effective.
      That contrasts interestingly with the view put by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) when he opened the debate. I am sure that he, too, will correct me if I paraphrase him incorrectly. His view was that the subsidiarity provisions under the Conservative Government had worked or had had the potential to work, but had been undermined by the provisions that were agreed in Amsterdam, which the Committee is debating. So we have heard three different views from Conservative Members on the content of the previous provisions under Maastricht and how they relate to the current provisions. Incidentally, if the newspapers are correct, I should extend kind regards to the hon. Gentleman on his birthday.
      Mr. Bercow: It is my birthday.
      Mr. Henderson: There is a spate of birthdays.
      The hon. Member for South-West Devon argued that paragraph (2) of protocol 7 of the Amsterdam treaty stops the proper application of the protocol, yet the wording to which he referred is almost identical to the wording that was drawn up under the Edinburgh guidelines and negotiated by his party. Therefore, I find it very strange that he is taking such a position.
      I shall—hopefully—explain my understanding of what was agreed in Amsterdam. Under Maastricht, article 3b set out the principle of subsidiarity in very general terms. Protocol 7 of the Amsterdam treaty spells out in detail the procedures that must be undergone to demonstrate that the principle of subsidiarity has been satisfied. That is categorised in paragraphs 4 and 5. That will provide a clearer test for the courts to apply if a measure is challenged on subsidiarity grounds. Equally, it will give the Council clear grounds on which to hold the Commission to the principle of subsidiarity when it proposes legislation.
      The advantage to us in Britain is that, if we believe that a matter should be dealt with under subsidiarity and the Commission does not deal with it in such a way, it would be open to any nation state, including ourselves, to go to the European Court of Justice to redress the matter. That would have been extremely difficult under the previous provisions.
      We have a coherent set of proposals. They represent a way forward and give practical effect to the concept of subsidiarity, which has been supported in principle by Front-Bench teams on both sides of the Committee.
      Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friends and I have listened with great interest to the Minister's response. They were seeking bankable reassurances; hoping even that our interpretation of protocol 7 was in some way incorrect; hoping that British interests had been protected in Amsterdam after all. I listened carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech, and it is clear that no such reassurances have been given. We have no option but to conclude that the very powerful arguments made throughout the debate by Conservative Members are correct. The vital principle of subsidiarity has not been enhanced by protocol 7. In fact, it has been diminished by protocol 7.
      732
      A concept already considered by many to be less than perfect is now seriously undermined—holed below the waterline. It is clear—the Minister has not contradicted us in any way—that paragraph (2) of protocol 7 makes the concept of subsidiarity subject to the acquis communautaire, the European Court of Justice and article F4.
      In a sparkling speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) got one tiny thing wrong. The Prime Minister did refer to the principle of subsidiarity on 16 June following the Amsterdam summit. He said that it had real teeth following the agreement of protocol 7. However, as we have heard, nothing could be further from the truth. The protocol has pulled the teeth of the principle. Perhaps, again, the Prime Minister did not understand what he had signed.
      We have witnessed one of those parliamentary occasions on which the strength of Conservative Members' arguments has increased as the debate has gone on and the compelling nature of our arguments has been there for all to see. Perhaps it is possible to have a different view on the effectiveness of the subsidiarity provisions agreed under Maastricht, but, having listened to the debate carefully, it is not possible to have a differing view on the effectiveness of the Amsterdam treaty's subsidiarity provisions. The treaty seriously undermines the principle of subsidiarity and seriously damages the national interest.
      It was not the Opposition's intention to push the amendment to a Division because, thanks to the ridiculous and iniquitous guillotine that the Government have imposed on us, it would have a knock-on effect for later debates, which are also important. However, such has been the power of Conservative Members' arguments, such is the importance of the issue and such has been the paucity of the Minister's response that we are left with no alternative but to put the matter to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 362.

      Division No. 131]

      [6.27 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Collins, Tim

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Cran, James

      Bercow, John

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Day, Stephen

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan, Alan

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brady, Graham

      Evans, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Faber, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Flight, Howard

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Butterfill, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Cash, William

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Gale, Roger

      Chope, Christopher

      Garnier, Edward

      Clappison, James

      Gibb, Nick

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Gill, Christopher

      733

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ottaway, Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Page, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Pickles, Eric

      Gray, James

      Prior, David

      Green, Damian

      Randall, John

      Greenway, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Heald, Oliver

      Ruffley, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Horam, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Key, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lansley, Andrew

      Townend, John

      Leigh, Edward

      Trend, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Walter, Robert

      Lidington, David

      Wardle, Charles

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Loughton, Tim

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Luff, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wilshire, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Madel, Sir David

      Woodward, Shaun

      Malins, Humfrey

      Yeo, Tim

      Maples, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Moss, Malcolm

      Mr. John Whittingdale.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainger, Nick

      Brake, Tom

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Alexander, Douglas

      Breed, Colin

      Allan, Richard

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Browne, Desmond

      Ashton, Joe

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Austin, John

      Burden, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Burgon, Colin

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Burnett, John

      Banks, Tony

      Burstow, Paul

      Barnes, Harry

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Barron, Kevin

      Byers, Stephen

      Battle, John

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Benton, Joe

      Canavan, Dennis

      Berry, Roger

      Cann, Jamie

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Blizzard, Bob

      Casale, Roger

      Borrow, David

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      734

      Chaytor, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chidgey, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grant, Bernie

      Clapham, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gunnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harvey, Nick

      Coleman, Iain

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Colman, Tony

      Healey, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cotter, Brian

      Hill, Keith

      Cousins, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cox, Tom

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Home Robertson, John

      Cummings, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hope, Phil

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Illsley, Eric

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Doran, Frank

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn, Hatfield)

      Dowd, Jim

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      Keetch, Paul

      Flynn, Paul

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Follett, Barbara

      Kemp, Fraser

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Kidney, David

      Foulkes, George

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fyfe, Maria

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Galloway, George

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Gardiner, Barry

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Laxton, Bob

      Gerrard, Neil

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Levitt, Tom

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Godman, Norman A

      Linton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Livingstone, Ken

      735

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rendel, David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Lock, David

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McAllion, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Rooney, Terry

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Rowlands, Ted

      McDonnell, John

      Roy, Frank

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruane, Chris

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McNulty, Tony

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      MacShane, Denis

      Salter, Martin

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McWalter, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McWilliam, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sawford, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mandelson, Peter

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Miller, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morley, Elliot

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mountford, Kali

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mudie, George

      Stringer, Graham

      Mullin, Chris

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Timms, Stephen

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Tipping, Paddy

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Todd, Mark

      Pearson, Ian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pendry, Tom

      Truswell, Paul

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pike, Peter L

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Plaskitt, James

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tyler, Paul

      Pond, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Pope, Greg

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pound, Stephen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Watts, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Webb, Steve

      Prosser, Gwyn

      White, Brian

      Purchase, Ken

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rammell, Bill

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Rapson, Syd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      736

      Willis, Phil

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winnick, David

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wise, Audrey

      Wood, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. John McFall and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after half-past Six o' clock, THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN put forwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to the Order [17 December].
      Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 18

      ENHANCEMENT OF ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
      '.—Pursuant to the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, Her Majesty's Government shall—

      (a) make available to both Houses of Parliament all legislative proposals or proposals for measures within one working day after transmission to the Government, and

      (b) not agree to such proposals in the Council until six weeks have elapsed from their transmission to both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. David Heath.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Council meetings: information for Parliament—
      '.—Pursuant to the protocol on Role of National Parliaments in the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, Ministers of the Crown shall, following each meeting of the Council of Ministers, make available to both Houses a synopsis of the meeting, with a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government.'.
      Mr. Heath: Both the new clauses stand in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). These are important new clauses, although I hope a brief debate on them will suffice. They will do what the Government have professed themselves willing to do in other circumstances, which is to lay before the House at the earliest possible opportunity proposals that are to be discussed in Europe, and to ensure that proper scrutiny takes place.
      At the moment, there is a gap in the provision, which is why we tabled new clause 18. The treaty of Amsterdam requires that all proposed measures should be submitted to the European Parliament and Council, and that no decisions should be taken in the Council until six weeks have elapsed. The gap is that, if the matter is a third-pillar proposal—an intergovernmental decision—it is not subject to the six-week rule—or it may be, as there is some ambiguity in the rules. Our amendment requires all proposals to be subject to the six-week rule.
      At the moment, the scrutiny reserve, as it is called, does not apply in that area. There is a good reason why the proposal should be incorporated, and we are

      737
      backed in that belief by the Select Committee on European Legislation, which concluded on 18 July 1996, in its 27th report on the scrutiny of European business, that
      "the extension of the 1990 resolution to inter-governmental business need cause the Government no difficulty".
      I entirely agree with that proposition and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
      New clause 18 would also tackle two potential difficulties with the supply of documentation. The treaty of Amsterdam requires that European Commission Green and White Papers and communications shall be transmitted "promptly" to national Parliaments and that proposals for legislation should be
      "made available in good time"
      to member Governments, so that they may transmit them to their national Parliaments. It seems entirely appropriate that we should use the speed suggested in those proposals to ensure that the documents are also available to us as Members of Parliament. The new clause would ensure that the Government supplied proposals in their possession to hon. Members within one working day. Again, there seems to be no difficulty in that.
      6.45 pm
      New clause 23 would ensure that, following each meeting of the Council of Ministers, a Minister would provide a synopsis of the meeting with a statement to the House of the Government's position. Again, that is important for transparency, as has been recognised by Ministers: when the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Lords Select Committee on the European Communities in July, he said:
      "what we do—and I am happy to give my mind to improving this—is publish very quickly after each Council a summary of what has taken place."
      That does not happen uniformly throughout Government Departments.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that good practice will be extended to all Departments, that we will have the benefit of knowing what is being done in the name of the House, this country and Europe, that such actions will be open to the widest possible scrutiny, and that accountability will be enhanced. Perhaps that will also underline the fact that Ministers are accountable to the House and that there is a proper role for hon. Members in scrutinising what Ministers do in our name.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to two new clauses which seem to accord with the Government's position and that we will not have to press them to a vote because he will satisfy the Committee that proposals are in train to enable that proper scrutiny to take place.
      Mr. Doug Henderson: It is nice to see the season ticket holders here, or some of them—they have paid their money, anyway.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: There are more people on our terraces than there are in the official Opposition's grandstand.
      Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that the private boxes are empty.
      738
      I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said about new clause 18, but it is not practical. As hon. Members will know, those matters were reviewed recently and there have been substantial improvements. We cannot accept a reduction to one working day. The present commitment is two working days, which allows a useful practical margin, reflecting the fact that we receive about 300 documents a week and it can be unclear which are subject to scrutiny. Without seriously diminishing Parliament's capacity to scrutinise proposals, shortening the period would be unworkable and disproportionate.
      The Government cannot agree to the proposal for a six-week period. The present commitment is stronger, and we do not agree proposals until they have cleared scrutiny, however long that takes. Emergency procedures are sometimes invoked. That is crucial in foreign policy: sometimes an initiative has to be taken—as with Algeria—when a matter is pressing. When the emergency procedures are invoked, that fact is relayed to the relevant Committees.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and his colleagues will accept that there is an intention to improve procedure. The new procedure is only weeks old, and I hope that it will be recognised that we need a little more time to see whether it works properly: one day would not be too practical.
      New clause 23 is about providing to Parliament a synopsis of Council of Ministers' meetings. As I understand it, there are different practices for different Departments. Many of those practices were inherited from the previous Government, and Ministers are examining them all to determine whether change is needed. I believe that there is a need for a review. I am fairly satisfied with the procedures adopted in relation to the Councils of Ministers on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I sit, but I am happy to consider suggestions for improvements.
      I want to review what is happening in other Departments, to see whether there are strengths in different practices that can be extended elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will accept that we intend to provide information and not to be secretive, and that he will withdraw the motion and await the review, which I will publish as soon as I can.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister give us a time scale for the conduct of the review and the announcement of its results? That might be persuasive in determining whether we should ask the Committee to vote on the motion.
      Mr. Henderson: I should like to be able to help the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have found—as he would find if he were in government—that the co-ordination of all the Departments involved is always a little more tricky than one would hope, and timetables are not always honoured. I assure him that I will use my best endeavours to ensure that the information is received quickly and the practices are reviewed as speedily as possible, so that best practice can be extended across all Departments.
      Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, some of which has been extremely helpful. I hope that he will take seriously the point that there is a need

      739
      for uniformity of practice across the Government and that as much information should be given to the House, and on as many occasions, as possible.
      If I have one piece of advice for the Minister, it is not to inherit practices from the previous Government. We look to the new Government to produce better, new practices.
      Mr. Henderson: I want to make it clear that I was referring to administrative practices that have been established in the Departments for a long time. Not all the previous Government's administrative practices should be rejected; some are of long standing and have served the country well. We are conducting a review. The political aim is to ensure that information on the discussions of Councils of Ministers and the other appropriate bodies is made available to the House.
      Mr. Heath: There are some administrative practices that it is better to reform, just as it would be better not to pursue certain policy directions for much longer. In the light of the Minister's assurances, on the assumption that there will be other opportunities to test the efficacy of the new procedures that he intends to put in place, and on the understanding that the Bill is not the only place in which we can ensure that new practices come into force in the United Kingdom, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 24

      POWERS OF EUROPOL: REPORT
      'This Act shall not come into force in the United Kingdom until a report tabled by a Minister of the Crown setting out in detail the new powers of Europol and the legal status of its officers in the United Kingdom has been debated and approved by each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Streeter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 43—Police operations in co-operation with Europol—
      '.—The relevant police authorities in the United Kingdom and their officers shall have full criminal and civil legal liability for any police operations affecting United Kingdom citizens they undertake in co-operation with Europol, notwithstanding any immunities granted to Europol staff.'.
      Mr. Streeter: We tabled the new clause specifically to probe the Government on their intentions for the new powers concerning Europol. It is fair to say that we are supportive of the general principles behind this part of the treaty. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) had a significant hand in the genesis of the measures some years ago. Conservative Members would of course support any reasonable measure that is intended to bear down on international and organised crime.
      The new clause would require parliamentary approval of a report because, although we support its general principle, this part of the treaty, as I am sure that the Minister would be the first to accept, introduces or
      740
      develops a significant concept whereby we effectively give legal immunity to a whole new class of people from overseas who are operating here. He will also be the first to recognise that there is public concern about the precise legal ramifications.
      We had an interesting debate in the Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 4 December, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) sent me an extremely helpful letter on 18 December setting out some details, but I should like to probe the Minister a little more about some of the important legal implications.
      We need a clearer idea about the activities that Europol officers will be involved in. Is it intended that legal immunity should cover all those activities, and in what circumstances will it be likely to be waived? What is it intended that a British individual should do if he or she has a complaint about the activities of a Europol officer?
      My letter from the Minister's colleague said:
      "Article 38 of the Convention provides that if damage is caused to an individual as a result of incorrect data processing by Europol (for example, if false information provided by Europol led to a British police force detaining a person in London), the remedy lies through action against the Member State in which the damage occurred, in the national courts."
      If I were a British citizen whose reputation had been damaged or who had been arrested or falsely imprisoned as a result of someone making a major blunder and giving the police the wrong information, I would be very aggrieved to be told that my remedy was to sue France. That prospect does not fill me with great encouragement. I would also ask myself whether legal aid would be available for such an action.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Certainly not.
      Mr. Streeter: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and it would not be available under the present Government.
      I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter. I have not had a satisfactory response to my question about legal redress for citizens who are aggrieved. We need some clarity about the scope of Europol officers' operations. They may not have the power of arrest, but are they allowed, for example, to accompany British police officers in the making of an arrest? In such a situation, one can foresee difficult circumstances arising.
      I hope that the Minister will regard the new clause in the spirit in which it was tabled. There are serious legal implications. I am not entirely satisfied that the greatest clarity has yet been forthcoming from the Government. I realise that we are dealing with a new concept, but the Minister will understand that it is important to place on the record in Hansard as much detail as possible about the legal scope available to Europol officers, the ways in which our citizens can be protected and the redress that they will have if things go wrong. I look forward to the Minister's response.
      7 pm
      Mr. David Heath: New clause 43 stands in my name. This is the third opportunity that we have had to discuss this matter, and I have been increasingly dissatisfied with the responses that I have received. A vital matter of

      741
      principle is at stake in the extraordinary immunity that will be provided for Europol officers working in the United Kingdom. I am surprised by the insouciance of Labour and Conservative Members, because those immunities will put British citizens at a substantial potential disadvantage. No serious questions have been raised about that by anyone other than myself and my hon. Friends.
      The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that we support entirely the additional co-operation that the proposals on Europol represent. We believe that there is a great role for police co-operation between the countries of Europe, and that Europol provides an avenue to achieve that. However, the order that was agreed shortly before Christmas will provide Europol officers with immunity from prosecution, except for traffic offences, in a way that is not, and never would be, available to British police officers in the execution of their duties in this country.
      The argument adduced in favour of the order was simply that such immunity is provided as a matter of course to other European organisations that involve more than one country. For obvious reasons, such immunity is provided to organisations that hold Governments to account, but the powers available to police officers relate directly to the civil liberties of individuals or groups of individuals. That is clearly different from the position of officers of, for instance, the OSPAR commission, which we also discussed in the Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      The British public in this country will have no adequate safeguard or redress if they feel that they have been put at a legal disadvantage by the actions of Europol officers. The only safeguard is that the immunity can be waived by the director of Europol. An analogous position would be a police officer having immunity in this country unless his chief constable said that he could be prosecuted. For what reasons can the waiver be granted? It cannot be granted in the interests of justice or the freedom of the individual, but it can be granted in the interests of the operations of the very organisation that the director leads.
      The order is a serious erosion of the liberties of the individual. I was surprised, when we raised the matter in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) could not support our position. Indeed, when the order came before the House, it was instructive that only some 30 Conservative Members voted against it, and they were not joined by their Front-Bench colleagues.
      The key question that the Minister must answer is why the powers will be given to Europol officers when they would not be given to British police officers. Why did the Foreign Secretary say, in response to a question from me in the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 November:
      "I would certainly resist any immunity being granted to Europol beyond anything that might be available to the national police"?
      The very next action of the Government was to do precisely that, and to provide a level of immunity that will not be available to a constable of the Avon and Somerset constabulary or any other force in this country. Why has the position changed?
      I hope that the Minister will not employ the tactics used by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, who resorted to bluster. He advised the Standing Committee on Delegated
      742
      Legislation that I was the friend of the international criminal for daring to suggest that a British citizen should have the power of redress against a police officer who was acting outside his powers and outside the law. I was told that we were supporting international crime by daring to suggest that the waiver might not be an adequate safeguard.
      The Government are mistaken, and this debate is the last opportunity that we shall have to make important points about immunity for Europol officers. For that reason—I do not know whether the hon. Member for South-West Devon intends to press new clause 24 to a Division—I hope to divide the Committee on new clause 43. It is an important matter on which hon. Members should have an opportunity to express their views.
      Sir Richard Body: The new clause concerns the powers of Europol. That phrase has no meaning whatever unless it means powers over the citizens of Europe and this country in particular. We are therefore in the realms of civil liberties. I am sure that the Minister recognises that fact and takes it seriously. I am also sure that he will agree that our police forces have procedures and methods that, while not always perfect, are on the whole superior to those on parts of the continent. It would be appalling if our people were to be subject to the loss of civil liberties of the kind experienced in parts of the continent. That is the fear which some of us have about the extension of the powers of Europol to this country.
      We appreciate that when fraud is rampant in the European Union, to the tune of some £6 billion a year, Europol must do what it can to curb it. Although that is an important consideration, it is overridden by the importance of civil liberties. Labour Members seem to have a singular lack of interest in civil liberties, and I am sorry that nobody on the Labour Benches has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Lord, in this short debate, which is very important for civil liberties. New clause 24 was moved with great reasonableness, and I hope that the Minister of State will be equally reasonable and accept it.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: It has been a characteristic feature of the development of the United Kingdom's relationship with our European partners that various measures have been brought before the House of Commons for us to approve in the name of the British people on the basis that those measures included safeguards for the British people.
      Over time, and despite the assurances that Ministers have given the House in good faith, we have found that the European Union has sought to arrogate to itself powers that go beyond the literal interpretation of the various agreements and treaties. I offer as an example the Single European Act 1985. It was understood by the Government of the day, and especially by Baroness Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, that the powers of qualified majority voting would extend only to certain areas of Community competence. Much of her resentment about what happened later arose from the fact that the Community sought to extend its competence beyond the areas to which the British Government thought that it had been confined.
      I mention that as a small preamble, because we are debating Europol and the extent to which it will have powers to work in the United Kingdom. As a member of

      743
      the Home Affairs Select Committee, together with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), I visited the European Parliament before Christmas. We had a meeting with the committee dealing with justice and home affairs, which was also attended by people from other continental parliaments. It became apparent that there are those on the continent who envisage the creation of a European police force.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) was right to press the Minister to make it clear to us and to the British people exactly what the British Government understand is being conferred by article K.2 in particular. What powers are to be conferred on Europol? Will he share with us details of how he would react if attempts were made to extend Europol's role beyond co-ordination into acting as a European police force?
      I remind the Committee that we must look at the treaty because we are presented with only a short Bill. Needless to say, the treaty is not the No. 1 best seller in W. H. Smith, but it is important that we make sure that people understand what exactly it says. Paragraph 2 of article K.2 states:
      "The Council shall promote cooperation"—
      note, "cooperation"—
      "through Europol and shall in particular, within a period of five years after the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam:
      (a) enable Europol to facilitate and support the preparation, and to encourage the coordination and carrying out, of specific investigative actions by the competent authorities of the Member States, including operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity".
      No one would disagree that it is right and proper to co-operate with our continental partners in the pursuit of cross-border crime and to take all necessary steps, particularly on drugs. However, will the Minister say how he understands the meaning of the expression
      "including operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity"?
      Does it mean that continental policemen will be attached to units in the United Kingdom and police Birmingham or Aldershot with powers of arrest over our citizens? Labour Members shake their heads, but our people need to know about such matters. I am sick and tired of being told that we should have read the treaty at the time because it was clear that it meant this or that, as happened with the treaties of Rome and Maastricht.
      It is incumbent on the Government to anticipate how the treaty might be interpreted in communautaire fashion so that people say, "Article K.2 clearly leads to the creation of a Europewide police force. Did you not understand that? Here it is: 'including operational action of joint teams'." It is important to be clear about what the Government think they are signing up to.
      I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government envisage, and are telling our continental partners that they envisage, that Europol officers will act in an advisory and support role, and that continental policemen will not roam the UK arresting our citizens. If that is what he has in mind, it would help if he told us tonight, so that people understand exactly what the treaty is all about.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I had not intended to contribute to this part of the Committee's deliberations, but I have been provoked by the reasonable and well
      744
      crafted contributions of other hon. Members. I have in mind the fact that recently in Scotland a citizen recovered substantial damages from the chief constable of Strathclyde.
      Several officers—seven, I think—were involved in an incident in which the individual concerned received serious injuries in the course of an arrest. The judge, Lord Marnoch, an experienced senior judge in the Court of Session, thought that the injuries went far beyond anything that was reasonable in arrest. He not only found that police officers had not told the truth, but that the pursuer, the Scottish equivalent of the plaintiff, was entitled to substantial damages.
      If officers of a non-domestic police force operating under the aegis of Europol had been engaged in such an operation—it is not far-fetched, because the operation's objective was to obtain evidence for a charge relating to the supply of illegal drugs—they would not have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, while the domestic officers would have been. That raises important difficulties, not only of practice but of principle. It is those which the Committee is anxious to hear the Minister address.
      Paragraph 1(a) of article K.2 refers to
      "competent authorities, including the police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services of the Member States in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences".
      The words
      "specialised law enforcement services of the Member States"
      seem apt to embrace the activities of organisations in other member states equivalent to MI5 or MI6. Can the Minister confirm that immunity would extend to such organisations, and not only to police forces?
      Mr. Swayne: I should like the Minister to consider paragraph 2(a) of article K.2, bearing in mind that the treaty requires that such joint operational activity should take place within five years. To what extent would a joint operation undertaken by Europol and British police forces be accountable to the House through the Secretary of State for the Home Department? If activities are undertaken by Europol officers under the aegis of Europol, there is a serious danger that responsibility to the House would be lost.
      Mr. Doug Henderson: New clause 24 would make Ministers table a report before the Act came into force. That would delay the Act, which is unacceptable to the Government, but I hope that my comments will offer some reassurance to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) about some of the issues that he raised.
      The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) stipulates that British police forces would be liable for any operations conducted with Europol which affected British citizens. I do not discount the fact that British police forces would be subject to some liability, but those matters have not yet been determined. The terms of the new clause are prescriptive, and they are unacceptable to the Government.
      Europol is covered by a convention according to which any change affecting its operations would have to be agreed by unanimity. At the moment, its operations are

      745
      limited to information-gathering services. If those were to be extended, as the treaty anticipates, the way in which that takes place would have to be prescribed.
      In answer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the Government do not envisage the establishment of a European police force. We do not even have a British police force: we have a number of different ones. We would not want to see any change in that structural relationship. As the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon, has made clear, however, we should like to see further co-operation on matters in which Europol could use its work, such as anti-drugs operations. The way in which that happens would have to be agreed in the future.
      The hon. Member for South-West Devon also posed the hypothetical question about someone who felt that he or she had been damaged as a result of actions by Europol. I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the legal redress available to a citizen under data protection. It is covered by the Europol convention, not the Amsterdam treaty. I want to take legal advice before I offer the hon. Gentleman a reply, and I undertake to do so as quickly as possible. I am sure that he will appreciate that that matter is not a direct responsibility of the Foreign Office, but more a matter for the Home Office. I shall therefore consult colleagues at that Department before I reply to the hon. Gentleman.
      The Amsterdam treaty essentially offers the prospect of an extension of Europol's operations within five years. When that happens, its privileges and immunities will have to be reviewed. At the time of that review, the Government will report to the House in the normal way, via the improved scrutiny arrangements that we have introduced, any conclusions reached. Were any legislation to be required, it would be brought forward by the Government in the normal way.
      Until that happens, the convention requires Europol to prevent any abuse of privileges and immunities granted under the provisions of the protocol. It also requires Europol to waive immunity in cases where its use would impede the course of justice. In practice, Europol will be unable to hide behind any immunity.
      The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether any services other than normal police services would be covered by Europol. Again, I cannot answer that question, because it is something that would have to considered in any review of an extension of Europol's activities. Consideration would then be given to how it would be appropriate for Europol to work with European police forces, and what type of structure would have to be introduced. At this stage, that has not been determined.
      Mr. David Heath: I do not feel that the Minister is entirely the master of this brief. Any waiver of immunity would be issued according to a twofold duty. It would be waived, first, in cases where immunity would impede the course of justice; and, secondly, in ways that did not prejudice the interests of Europol. The interests of Europol therefore become the test against which such a decision is made, which is totally different from any other test in British legislation. Why are Europol officers being
      746
      treated differently from British police forces? That is in flat contradiction of the assurance that the Foreign Secretary gave the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
      Mr. Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that Europol officers have limited involvement in current operations. Their work is information gathering, and were that to be extended over a five-year period, as the treaty of Amsterdam anticipates, any such extension would be subject to a debate and agreement by unanimity under the Europol convention. That would allow the Houses of our Parliament to discuss those matters, but it would be wrong to anticipate now the nature of those discussions. An assurance has been given that the immunities and privileges afforded to Europol will be reviewed then.
      It is obviously important as a matter of principle that British citizens, and citizens throughout Europe, are protected. When a wrong has been committed there should be effective legal redress for citizens throughout Europe. Such matters will have to be addressed when considering the extension of Europol's work, but I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that I cannot say anything else about that now.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: In pursuit of the intelligence and information-gathering work that Europol is already engaged in, its officers might be present in the United Kingdom to assist in a major operation. If that operation misfired to such an extent that some citizens had reason to believe that they had been wrongly arrested, wrongly subject to adverse publicity or in some other way damaged, should immunity be waived so that proceedings could he taken against those Europol officers? The head of Europol would then have to decide whether it would be in its interests to allow that, bearing in mind the fact that, for intelligence-gathering reasons, he may not wish the extent to which the force had been involved to be disclosed.
      Mr. Henderson: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises that such an example would be dealt with in the next five-year period, when immunities will be reviewed. I hope that he will accept that the principled belief of the Government is that British citizens, in common with citizens throughout Europe, must have the right of redress if a wrong is committed against them by a British police officer or some other law enforcement agency officer. That would be a key point of the review. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that. Given that the extension of Europol's information-gathering services is not envisaged at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman's argument is somewhat theoretical.
      Sir Richard Body: Surely it is generally understood that there will be moves in due course to amend the convention that regulates Europol, in order to extend its powers. Surely I am right to say that, when that revised convention is considered, the House will have no authority or power to ratify those changes, although they may have far-reaching effects.
      Mr. Henderson: I thought that I had tried to answer that point. I accept that it is anticipated that there will be some developments along those lines, but any such

      747
      decisions will have to be agreed by unanimity in the first place. The normal scrutiny conducted by the House would be part of that process. As I have already made clear in previous exchanges on the treaty, in principle I support the extension of our scrutiny procedures to issues covered by the second and third pillars.
      My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a more general statement on that subject, probably tomorrow. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. If any decision is reached by unanimity which requires a change in British law, that will of course be dealt with through the normal processes of this House.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Howard: I had not intended to take part in the debate, any more than did the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), but I should be grateful if the Minister would express a view in confirmation or otherwise on my analysis of the situation, which significantly differs from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
      The provisions in K.2, or article 30 as it will be of the treaty on European Union, make it absolutely clear that the only activities that Europol officers will be able to undertake will be in a support capacity. All operational decisions and operational actions will be taken by law enforcement officers, conventionally the police. Therefore, would it not be the case that, if the set of circumstances identified by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) led to wrongful arrest, the police, who would be responsible for that wrongful arrest, would in the normal event be liable to the citizen and the citizen could obtain compensation from the police force in that way?
      If that analysis is right—no doubt the Minister will want to take advice on the matter, but I am encouraged by the signs that I have seen—is it not the case that the new clause to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has spoken is completely unnecessary, because the liability contained in that new clause would follow in any event?
      Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I confirm that my interpretation is the same as his in respect of the operation of police activities, and that Europol would be involved in a support capacity to police forces throughout Europe, whatever their internal structure.
      The question about wrongful arrest is something that would have to be considered as part of a review process as the activities of Europol were established, even if they are established precisely in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have interpreted the provision to intend. There would need to be detailed examination of the way in which Europol officers related to other officers in domestic police forces and of the question of who would carry responsibility for any liability incurred.
      Mr. Howard: There are two separate questions, and there is a danger of confusing them. It is a matter of considerable importance, and no doubt an appropriate question for review, whether the body that ultimately pays the compensation is the British police force or Europol. That is clearly significant, and something that would be
      748
      covered by the review. However, what is of interest to the citizen is that he gets compensation; it does not matter much to the citizen whether he gets it from a British police force or from Europol.
      The concern that I suggest we ought to have about the treaty is whether the citizen will get the compensation to which he or she is entitled for wrongful arrest or for any other wrong done to him. The Minister, in the first part of his intervention, confirmed my analysis and my understanding that the citizen would have a right to compensation against the police force or other law enforcement agency in those circumstances. If that is right, it must follow that the new clause is unnecessary, however many questions may need to be considered in the review as to whether the ultimate compensation is paid by the British police force or by Europol.
      Mr. David Heath: It is always an edifying sight when a former Secretary of State comes to the aid of a present Minister of State, but I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken.
      If officers acting in a support role require no immunity, why is that immunity not given to officers acting on behalf of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, whose role in respect of provincial police forces is exactly analogous to the role that will be carried out by Europol? Is it not easy to foresee circumstances in which redress to an individual citizen is appropriate as a result of police officers belonging to a local constabulary acting in good faith and blamelessly in the execution of their duties on the basis of information or other material provided by Europol which was not beyond reproach or blameless?
      Mr. Howard: No—the analogy with the National Criminal Intelligence Service illustrates the error and the absurdity of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It would be ludicrous to suppose that, in this country, circumstances would arise in which a citizen had been wrongfully arrested and brought an action for wrongful arrest against the police force responsible for the arrest, but the police force said "Not me, Guv. You shouldn't be suing us—you should be suing the National Criminal Intelligence Service." It is simply beyond contemplation that that situation could arise, so the analogy the hon. Gentleman draws is a fanciful one, and is not relevant to the Committee's considerations this evening.
      There may well be questions in due course, which is why the Minister is right to point to the need for a review of whether the ultimate source of compensation to the citizen should be the police force or Europol. However, what is important in terms of consideration of the treaty is whether the citizen gets the compensation to which he is entitled. I believe that the citizen would get the compensation to which he was entitled, and that ought to be our concern when considering the treaty. That is why the new clause is unnecessary, and why Conservative Members will not support it if it is pressed to a vote.
      Mr. Beith: The former Home Secretary prompts me to say that he did not fully review my earlier point, because he confined his remarks to circumstances in which wrongful arrest had occurred. Other things might take place, and I gave the example of a person suffering adverse publicity because of information leaked by an officer which turned out to be false, or which should not have been leaked in any case, whether true or false,

      749
      because inquiries were still in progress. That action might have been taken by an officer of Europol and not of the police force involved. One can imagine other cases, involving not a simple case of wrongful arrest, but some other form of culpability directed at Europol officers.
      We raise these matters not because we expect Europol officers to behave in that way, but because there must be an ultimate safeguard. That safeguard has been stripped away by the breadth of immunity given to Europol—a scale of immunity not given to British police forces, or to other organisations which assist British police forces such as the Security Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, or the National Crime Squad, all of which operate in a role that is in some way similar.
      We remain extremely concerned, and I hope that, even if we have not persuaded them to take immediate action, today's debate will send the Government hastening back to interdepartmental consultation on this issue. There is a serious gap and, from his demeanour and the concern he has shown, I believe that the Minister is aware of that gap.
      Mr. Streeter: This has been a valuable debate. I thank the Minister for making it clear that the Government have no plans whatsoever to support any concept of a European police force. For reasons given, we cannot support the Liberal Democrats' new clause, but I must tell the Minister that I am not entirely satisfied by his response to the debate. When he writes to me, as he says he will, I hope that he will set out in some detail the answers to some of the questions that I have asked. It is not so much that we want to know what will happen in five years' time; we want to know the limits of the scope of activity in the next five years. We also want to know more about the legal immunity.
      I should have thought that, on hearing some of the concerns around the House today, the Minister would ask the Leader of the House of Commons, his right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to organise a longer debate on the subject in Government time between now and Easter, so that we can discuss some of the details. It is important that our citizens should be reassured. We want more detail about how the process will work in practice. I am disappointed that the Minister should introduce the measure without having fully thought through its legal implications and ramifications, and seemingly without adequate briefing.
      Given all the circumstances, it is not our intention to press the new clause to a Division tonight, but I hope that the Minister has listened carefully and will note that we are not entirely satisfied; we require more information and an opportunity to debate the subject fully in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 43

      POLICE OPERATIONS IN CO-OPERATION WITH EUROPOL
      '.—The relevant police authorities in the United Kingdom and their officers shall have full criminal and civil legal liability for any police operations affecting United Kingdom citizens they undertake in co—operation with Europol, notwithstanding any immunities granted to Europol staff:.—[Mr. Menzies Campbell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 324.

      Division No. 132]

      [7.40 pm

      AYES

      Baker, Norman

      Harvey, Nick

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Brake, Tom

      Keetch, Paul

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Breed, Colin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Burnett, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Burstow, Paul

      Oaten, Mark

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Taylor Matthew (Truro)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Tyler, Paul

      Dafis, Cynog

      Willis, Phil

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mr. Steve Webb and

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mr. Richard Allan.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clwyd, Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barnes, Harry

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Battle, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Bayley, Hugh

      Colman, Tony

      Beard, Nigel

      Connarty, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benton, Joe

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Berry, Roger

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Best, Harold

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cox, Tom

      Blizzard, Bob

      Crausby, David

      Borrow, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Browne, Desmond

      Davidson, Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Byers, Stephen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Doran, Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dowd, Jim

      Cann, Jamie

      Drew, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Casale, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Edwards, Huw

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      751

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Khabra, Piara S

      Flint, Caroline

      Kidney, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Follett, Barbara

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fyfe, Maria

      Laxton, Bob

      Galloway, George

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gapes, Mike

      Levitt, Tom

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Linton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lock, David

      Godman, Norman A

      Love, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      McAllion, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Grant, Bernie

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grocott, Bruce

      McDonnell, John

      Grogan, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gunnell, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hain, Peter

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McWalter, Tony

      Healey, John

      McWilliam, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hill, Keith

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Maxton, John

      Hoey, Kate

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Home Robertson, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Merron, Gillian

      Hope, Phil

      Michael, Alun

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morley, Elliot

      Hurst, Alan

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hutton, John

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mountford, Kali

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pike, Peter L

      752

      Plaskitt, James

      Spellar, John

      Pollard, Kerry

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Pond, Chris

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Pope, Greg

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pound, Stephen

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stringer, Graham

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rammell, Bill

      Rapson, Syd

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Todd, Mark

      Rogers, Allan

      Truswell, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roy, Frank

      Vaz, Keith

      Ruane, Chris

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ward Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Watts, David

      Salter, Martin

      White, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wise, Audrey

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wood, Mike

      Skinner, Dennis

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mr. John McFall.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 44

      EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN COURT OF AUDITORS AND OTHER BODIES
      '.—In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 43c (cmd. 3780, page 38) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Secretary of State shall establish a standing mechanism for the exchange of information between the Court of Auditors and, respectively, the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and, in respect of funds administered by local government, the Audit Commission and the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.'.—[Mr. David Heath.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is an important new clause. I hope that I shall speak briefly enough to enable the Minister to accept it without question in the short time available to us before 8 o'clock.
      Very simply, there is a pressing need to beef up co-operation between the European and the national auditors. As we know, 80 per cent. of European

      753
      expenditure is administered by national Governments; that is where the bulk of fraud, maladministration and other irregularities are found.
      The Court of Auditors is doing a very good job. It seems to me that it is showing up some of the inadequacies in the present system. In its most recent report, for the third year running the Court of Auditors was unable to give formal approval to the spending accounts.
      Fraud costs the European Union about £3 billion a year—an amount equal to about 5.4 per cent. of its entire budget. Between 1988 and 1996, VAT fraud alone cost the EU about £750 million.
      I believe that the audit systems that are in place in this country are extremely good. I used to be a member of the Audit Commission and I obviously had some interest in the way in which that body worked. If we can link the very good audit systems that we have in this country with that available to the Court of Auditors through Europe, we shall provide a very good example of a seamless system of audit, which will substantially reduce fraud. We can then be much more open in our selling of that process to other member states, in the hope that they will accede to similar arrangements and that we can substantially reduce the fraud bill and redirect the money saved back to member states or into European programmes that need support. Obviously, a standing link would be the most efficacious way to achieve that.
      If the Government are serious about cracking down on fraud—as I believe they are—they should take the opportunity to accede to the suggestion in the new clause and to provide that standing link, as an example to other member states. I ask the Minister to support the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: During the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, I tabled an amendment regarding fraud and the issue of the relationship between the Court of Auditors and national Parliaments. Although, Sir Alan, I am sure that, you would not want me to impugn your integrity and impartiality during this debate, I am sure that as a former co-member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, you will recall that I have pursued this question diligently for many years.
      I intend not to make a long speech but simply to respond to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), so I merely say that I do not believe for a minute that there is the slightest chance of the other member states agreeing to scrutiny arrangements of the type that are available to us in the United Kingdom in the form of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
      It is unnecessary for me to go into detail, as I have spoken on the subject many times, but I am deeply apprehensive about the proposals in the treaty of Amsterdam, and I do not believe for a minute that the improvements that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said he hoped for will take place. If there is no improvement, I am afraid that our taxpayers will be taken to the cleaners over and over again. I need not enlarge on
      754
      that point, although I could easily make a speech of one and a half hours about it. In this case, one and a half minutes will suffice.
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I cannot accept the new clause. I fear that it could lead to an increase in bureaucracy, which is not what the Government would wish. As I understand it, the National Audit Office is content with the present arrangements for co-operation with the Court of Auditors. It is looking into what improvements can be made to the current system; it has the Government's support in doing so. It would be much better to await its review and to see how improvements can be put in place before establishing any unnecessary additional bureaucracy.
      Question put and negatived.
      Bill reported, without amendment, pursuant to the Order [17 December].
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8 pm
      Mr. Doug Henderson: May I first convey to the House the apologies of the Foreign Secretary—I believe that he has already conveyed them to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who is on important Government business in China.
      We are bringing to a close this stage of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Amsterdam treaty. We have spent many hours in detailed examination of the treaty, and I believe that the scrutiny by the House has been conducted with the thoroughness which this important treaty merits. We have discussed amendments relating to virtually every clause of the treaty, but, thanks to the Government's timetable motion, we have also been able to make reasonable progress.
      I cannot agree with Conservative Members' claims that scrutiny has been inadequate. I do not regard a total of about 30 hours' debate in the House as a cursory examination; and compared with the scrutiny given in other EU Parliaments to similar measures, we have done very well.
      By passing the Bill, we will be able to bring into UK law the parts of the treaty that give rise to Community rights and obligations, and thus to proceed to formal ratification of the treaty. I hope that progress on the Bill will continue to be as good, and that the United Kingdom will be one of the first member states to ratify the treaty of Amsterdam. With our presidency of the Union, that will send an important signal to our European partners that the new British Government are committed to full engagement in Europe. That contrasts with the Maastricht treaty which, in the hands of the previous Government, we were virtually the last to ratify. The ratification process is well on track in other member states, and we are optimistic that the treaty will come into force early in 1999.
      Much has changed since the treaty was agreed in June. In those heady days of summer, the Opposition were strident in their advocacy of an immediate referendum on Amsterdam in the United Kingdom. I am pleased to note that they have now fallen in line with the Government's view that that would not be appropriate. I welcome Conservative Front Benchers' conversion, even if some Tory Back Benchers take a different view.

      755
      I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides for the high quality of the debates on the Bill. The Daily Telegraph, no less, reported on 17 December that these debates had seen some of the most impressive Opposition speeches since the general election. I should add that there have not exactly been many runners in the contest, but I am happy to give credit where it is due. There have been many interventions by Labour Members, too, of great sincerity and quality.
      The minority in the House who seem to remain opposed to the Bill have struggled to find any rational reasons for opposing it. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe has shared with us his nightmare vision of the sanctions clause—our 14 partners will gang up on the UK for no good reason and impose sanctions on us. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), however, has pointed out that that is so far from reality as to be laughable. Anything that makes Conservative Members laugh is to be commended—they have not had much to laugh about of late.
      The shadow Foreign Secretary has repeatedly castigated the Government for signing up to more qualified majority voting. That is somewhat hypocritical, given that the former Government signed up to QMV for a whole raft of single market legislation under the Single European Act; and for 30 other areas under Maastricht. The Tories disregard the fact that it is in our national interest to sign up to majority voting in a number of areas.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also tried to suggest that allowing British people the same benefits as are enjoyed by their European counterparts, who have incorporated the social chapter already, will bring the British economy crashing to its knees. The truth, as the vast majority of hon. Members recognise, is that this is a good treaty for this country.
      The new treaty marks a new direction for the Union as it moves towards the new priorities of enlargement and working better for its citizens. The EU faces a host of new challenges: the need to compete in global markets; to adjust to profound social changes; to respond to external political developments; and to tackle new threats to the EU's security at home and abroad. We are determined that the Union should be in good shape to meet those challenges. As president, we are actively promoting policies to meet those challenges head on.
      Agreeing the new treaty of Amsterdam was the first step in this process. We achieved what is widely regarded across Europe as a very British treaty which reflects the British Government's priorities on: employment, fighting crime, protecting the environment, subsidiarity and an increased role for national Parliaments, measures to counter fraud in the Community, greater openness in the Union, fighting discrimination, and animal welfare. To that list could be added foreign policy co-ordination, a recognition of NATO's key role in defence, and retaining the veto for key common foreign and security policy decisions. On all those issues, we went to Amsterdam looking for results—and we got them. We showed at Amsterdam that it is possible to have a constructive relationship with Europe to our mutual benefit.
      We will accept no lessons from Conservatives on how to negotiate in Europe or anywhere else. They fail to understand that the EU is not a zero sum game. So we shall continue to play a full and active part in Europe,
      756
      looking for consensus, not conflict, as the best way of securing the national interest. This treaty shows that that can be done, and the benefits of doing it. I look forward to telling the House about more such success in the future, and I commend the Bill to the House.
      8.7 pm
      Mr. Howard: The fact that we are now less than two hours away from the end of debating this Bill is an outrage. It gives effect to a major treaty which provides for the transfer of substantial powers from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to sources of power and authority outside this kingdom. It provides for the surrender of our veto, for an extension of qualified majority voting and for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament. It subjects us to the social chapter. It neuters any substance in the concept of subsidiarity. It will increase the extent to which laws can be made binding on the people of this country without their consent or that of their Parliament or Government.
      Yet, as a result of a brutal exercise of the guillotine after only 12 hours' debate in Committee, completely free of filibuster, the whole of the Bill's scrutiny in Committee of the whole House has been confined to just over 20 hours.
      Reporting progress a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) used the time-honoured phrase when he said:
      "the Committee has gone through the European Communities (Amendment) Bill".
      Rarely has that been a more hollow claim. The Minister said that scrutiny had been conducted with thoroughness. It is true that we have done what we could in the very limited time available, but the fact that the Government have imposed such a draconian guillotine on the Bill is a disgrace. I hope that, when another place comes to consider it in detail, that will be borne in mind. The best that the Minister could say when he was defending the guillotine was that the scrutiny that the House had given to the Bill compared favourably with that in other Parliaments of the European Union, as though that was supposed to be some consolation to us.
      It would be foolish to consider the Bill in isolation. While power is being transferred from Britain to Brussels and Strasbourg, it is also being transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh, to some as yet undesignated seat in Wales, and in due course, no doubt, to the English regions.
      It is all of a piece. Those who want to see a Europe of the regions, in which the important decisions in Europe are increasingly taken in Brussels and in the regions of Europe, with less and less being decided in national Parliaments, would applaud that agenda with enthusiasm.
      Those of us with reservations about that agenda are not hostile to Europe or to the European Union. We are not anti-Europe or anti-European; on the contrary, we want to see a European Union that works, with Britain as a prominent part of it, but we believe that further and deeper integration, far from contributing to that objective, will have the opposite effect.
      We believe that the strains and stresses that will result will undermine and fragment the cohesion of the European Union. We believe that they will increase the resentment felt in this country as more and more decisions are taken without the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

      757
      That is why the Bill and the treaty to which it gives effect should have been given proper scrutiny. That is why enough time should have been made available for that scrutiny to take place. That is why the Government's approach to these important matters is such a scandal.
      Last Thursday, to add insult to injury, we had the bizarre spectacle of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who is not in his place, taking up time with the apparent intention of protecting the Minister from the need to reply to the debate, and then blaming Opposition Members. It was the hon. Member for Ilford, South and the Minister who voted for the guillotine. They were responsible for the fact that the amount of time available was so limited, and they had the gall to point the finger at us.
      During the debates that we have had, we have done the best we could to give the Bill due scrutiny, to identify its many shortcomings and to ask the questions that need answering. We have done that in a responsible way, as was shown by our attitude to the last amendment that we pressed to a Division. We do not make unnecessary points. We do not vote for unnecessary amendments. There is enough in the Bill to warrant justified opprobrium to make that unnecessary.
      The Minister, to give him credit where credit is due, has made a brave effort, especially in the earlier part of our scrutiny, to answer our questions. It is not his fault that he could not, for the most part, give satisfactory answers or proper assurances. The fault is in the treaty and the Bill, and with the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for signing up to the treaty.
      The Government claim to want to create jobs. By signing up, in the treaty, to the social chapter, they will destroy jobs. The Government claim to want to lead Europe. By signing up, in the treaty, to more qualified majority voting, they will ensure that they can be ignored on major issues. The Government claim to want to improve democracy. By signing up, in the treaty, to measures that will weaken Westminster, they will undermine the basis of our democracy. In almost every area, the measures to which the Government have signed up in the treaty will achieve the opposite of what they intend.
      The treaty is at least as bad for what it omits as for what it contains. It will bring about no progress on enlargement or on quota-hopping, and will do nothing to justify the Prime Minister's bold words before the election. The Prime Minister went to Amsterdam seeking to decentralise power within the Union. He failed. He went to Amsterdam promising to prepare the way for enlargement. He failed. He went to Amsterdam having given an explicit pledge to our fishing communities that he would secure a better deal for them. He failed.
      For the reasons that we have given in our debates, and for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in his excellent article in The Times this morning, the treaty is a bad treaty—bad for Britain and bad for Europe. That is why Conservative Members will have no hesitation in voting against the Bill tonight.
      8.14 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: At this stage in the Bill's progress, it is unlikely that any minds will be moved to take up a different viewpoint from that with which they
      758
      began. Much of what the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), just said echoes what he said on Second Reading and, if my memory serves me correctly, what he said when we debated the guillotine motion.
      This is not so much a game of two halves as a debate of two irreconcilable viewpoints. It has been clear from the beginning that the Conservative party would vote against the Bill at this stage, as at every other stage. Some who have spoken would have voted against any Bill and any treaty that had come out of the IGC. If one analyses the speeches made over the days on which we have considered the Bill, one sees clearly that a large part of the present parliamentary representation of the Conservative party is opposed not just to further European integration, but to Europe itself.
      The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is in his place, indefatigable as ever, honourable, consistent in his opposition, has made no secret, even during a long period of Conservative government, of his opposition to any further integration in Europe.
      I cannot help thinking that we and the country would have a much more productive debate if all those who genuinely want Britain to come out of the European Union would declare themselves, and if those who want to row back would tell us to what point they wish to row back—before Maastricht, before the single European Act? Their position is clothed in ambiguity.
      Surely those who want to come out of Europe and those who want to row back have an obligation to offer a coherent alternative to the course on which successive British Governments have set themselves, and of which the Bill, following the Amsterdam treaty, is a logical and, in my view, not particularly significant extension.
      Mr. Howard: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that those who are in favour of a federal Europe owe it to the House to come clean and tell us that? Do not those who are in favour of the Bill and the treaty have a duty to tell the House what they see as the ultimate destination of the European Union that they want?
      Mr. Campbell: I have no complaint about the notion of a federal Europe. Federalism, as properly defined, is a system of government that devolves power, rather than aggregating it. [Interruption.] I know that some hon. Members find it difficult to control themselves or to conceal their true feelings. I offer them the Oxford English dictionary if they are looking for a definition. I have no quarrel with the notion that the economic integration of Europe was bound to be followed by increased political integration.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
      Mr. Campbell: I have argued that case in the House, and so has my party, for a long time. I have no quarrel with the notion that we should have something approaching a federal United Kingdom. That is why I have argued for home rule throughout my adult political life.
      Mr. Blunt rose—
      Mr. Campbell: Federalism allows one to define clearly and unambiguously the powers of the respective

      759
      Parliaments. In my view it is a proper solution to the government of the United Kingdom, and in due course, if the peoples of Europe want to bring it about, it may be a proper solution to the way in which Europe should organise itself. However, a model of federalism is a long, long way in the distance from what we are considering in the treaty.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Campbell: Take your pick.
      Mr. Cash: In his enthusiasm for home rule, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there will come a moment when people will be as anxious to ensure that we retain our legislative independence in this place as Parnell was determined to obtain it for the Irish people in his time? The home rule argument is totally at variance with the democracy of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Campbell: I certainly do not accept that. Let us consider the history of the last part of the 19th century. If the arguments then in relation to Irish home rule had succeeded, perhaps we would not be experiencing some of the current difficulties in our relationship with Ireland. It is worth pointing out that another effort was made just before the outbreak of the first world war—if my memory serves me correctly, legislation seeking to bring home rule to both Ireland and Scotland received a Second Reading—but it failed because of the assassination at Sarajevo.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was leader of the Conservative party, he came to Perth and issued what was called the declaration of Perth. He argued the case for a Scottish Parliament extremely persuasively—to the extent that the late Sir Alec Douglas-Home, later Lord Home, told the people of Scotland in 1979 that they should vote against the proposals of the then Labour Government because the Conservatives had promised them something better: an assembly with tax-raising powers. I think that I have given enough history lessons to some of those less well-informed Opposition Members.
      Mr. Bercow: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way so generously. To Opposition Members, he appears to resemble nothing so much as a shifting goal post. Let us try to pin him down. Some years ago, Jacques Delors expressed the hope and the expectation that, ultimately, 80 per cent. of laws affecting the citizens of the United Kingdom would originate in Brussels. Is that acceptable to the hon. and learned Gentleman? If it is not, will he tell the House at what point he would draw a line in the sand and say, "Thus far and no further"?
      Mr. Campbell: I do not think that it is possible to conduct such matters in that way. I find it rather amusing to hear references to Mr. Delors and federalism. Hon. Members may remember that Mr. Dehaene offered to play an important role in Europe but was turned down by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Conservative Prime Minister, on the grounds that he was thought to be too federal. Mr. Santer was chosen instead. The right hon. Gentleman described him as "the
      760
      right man in the right place at the right time". However, in his first important contribution to the debate on Europe, Mr. Santer said that he thought that federalism was the direction that Europe should take. I do not believe that Conservative Members are in a position to preach to the rest of us about such matters.
      Mr. Blunt rose—
      Mr. Campbell: No. I think that I have given way rather generously, and now I must continue. I am sure that some of those Opposition Members who wish to intervene will seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Tory consensus that was a rallying point on Second Reading—opposition to the social chapter—will no doubt have survived to Third Reading. However, it is a pretty fragile basis upon which to build a lasting consensus in the Conservative party on the issue of Europe. That consensus was fractured even in the course of this Bill by the 12 angry men who wrote to The Independent in support of a single currency. If today's reports are to be believed, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), is willing to engage in cross-party efforts to inform the public of the benefits of Europe, and particularly the advantages of a single currency.
      Those people have been dismissed as yesterday's men—particularly the former Deputy Prime Minister. That is rather cavalier treatment. I wonder how many of those who are now anxious to join that chorus were eager to welcome him to the diet of liebfraumilch and overdone chicken which I believe is the fare at the annual dinner of most Conservative associations.
      The social chapter is no threat to the economy of the United Kingdom or to inward investment. Inward investment is more at risk from the present economic difficulties of investing countries, such as those in Asia, than from any risk associated with adopting the social chapter. The United Kingdom needs a work force that is educated, motivated and confident—not one that feels exploited. By way of illustration, we are talking about what is essentially best practice: some 57 blue chip United Kingdom companies, such as BP and British Airways, already have works councils.
      The treaty establishes several principles. Environmental protection and sustainable development must be fundamental priorities and qualified majority voting can be extended to areas such as fraud. Two months ago, the European Union Court of Auditors reported that, in the previous year, £3 billion had been wasted through fraud. That figure is about £9 billion for the past year. If ever there were an argument for introducing qualified majority voting to deal with a problem, it lies in those bald figures.
      Sir Teddy Taylor rose
      Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but I must make progress. The treaty opens the way to enlargement—although not as much as it should as there is no proper consideration of the institutional changes that will be required when enlargement takes place. There will have to be some other consideration of that in another intergovernmental conference or another forum of that kind.

      761
      The treaty states the primacy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. However, those who remember the detail of the Maastricht treaty will recall that the proposition for a common foreign and security policy was without prejudice to any existing treaty obligations of EU members. The treaty allows closer co-operation through the Western European Union regarding humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks.
      Viewed objectively in relation to common foreign and security policy, the treaty amounts to no more than a consolidation. However, I believe that the policy will continue to develop. There is a current practical example of that. A troika has gone to Algeria, under the leadership of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), to put forward proposals on behalf of the European Union in the interests of the people of the European Union. I believe that that kind of arrangement is likely to be repeated on many future occasions.
      On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary described the Bill as a triumph, and his shadow, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), described it as a disaster. As I said then, they cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong. We have reached the concluding stages of the Bill. I believe that it marks modest progress in Europe and modest progress in the interests of the United Kingdom. That is why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it in the Lobby tonight.
      8.27 pm
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I feel rather like a late guest at a funeral who sweeps in at the conclusion of the sermon and announces that the dear departed was a bit of a creep. In this case, the dear departed is the Bill, and that is a pretty accurate description of it and the Amsterdam treaty. We must find another way of implementing such measures in this place. It is ludicrous to push legislation through on a Government majority—that will always happen because the Government have negotiated the legislation—supported by the Liberal Democrats, who will support anything from Europe because they are Euro-daft. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who has just spoken, has demonstrated that.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman said, he has come late to the wedding feast. [HON. MEMBERS: "Funeral."] He has come late to the celebration. If he had been in the Chamber only an hour ago, he would have heard us take issue with the Government about part of the treaty. The hon. Gentleman is, by and large, a sensible individual who adopts a sensible view. I do not always agree with him, but it does not do him or his argument much good to indulge in that sort of sweeping generalisation.
      Mr. Mitchell: I agree that the Liberals always try to get the best of both worlds. I agree also with some of the sensible amendments that were tabled on openness and the production of reports. However, it remains the case that the Liberals will accept anything that comes from Europe because they accept the ultimate destination of a
      762
      federal Europe; the rest of the House does not. The Liberals are alone in that respect. They are out of touch with public opinion, but people do not notice because the Liberals are not particularly important politically.
      The stand of the Liberals is characterised by my recollection of the then Grimsby by-election, during which I was fighting on a platform of taking British control of British fishing waters. The Liberals were passionate enthusiasts for and supporters of Europe. During the very period of the by-election, a Liberal Member introduced a private Member's Bill that would have had the effect of the British taking control of a 50-mile limit. In other words, the Liberals believe in a common fisheries policy that precludes such a limit, but they are prepared to act in that fashion for opportunist, populist reasons. They whip up populist complaints while accepting the principle that has given rise to them.
      I was saying, in effect, that we are engaged in a bad way of doing business. We are pushing through legislation when we cannot even consider the treaty to which it relates because we are considering the implementation of the treaty in British law and not the provisions of the treaty. We have had no influence on it. It would be far better—this would give us coherent options—if we could discuss what our proposals are and come to decisions for which Ministers could bargain, rather than have posthumously to accept whatever is determined.
      I must make a shocking confession: I voted for the Bill's Second Reading. Since then I have received much friendly mail from fellow Euro-sceptics throughout the country inviting me to go forth and multiply, to drop dead or to do other things that I am not especially inclined to do. Tonight, however, I intend to kneel down for my principles by abstaining. That is real courage on my part, because I am a nervous rebel. I have never seen myself as a natural born rebel.
      I believe that I am justified in abstaining on Third Reading. The Bill has not improved, despite the amendments that were tabled—some of which I supported—on openness, reports and clarity. I still adhere to my view that the Bill relates to a pretty futile treaty. In effect, it is the first treaty for the Labour party.
      The original negotiations took place under the Conservatives. The negotiations on a single market took place through the Conservatives. The Maastricht treaty was carried through by the Conservatives. Here we are, new Labour, with a new and sensible approach. Surely it is sensible to say, "Let us work with Europe to see what we can get by working together rather than taking a confrontational approach." That is eminently sensible, and I went along with it.
      The Labour party is not naturally a Euro-enthusiastic organisation, because we represent the people, and the people are pretty cool and sceptical about the whole business. We are concerned primarily with jobs and economic growth, which makes us worry about the economic consequences of Europe. At the same time, it is right to introduce a new spirit, to end isolation and to end the us-and-them situation in Europe, just as we are dedicated to ending the us-and-them approach in British society.
      We testified as a new Government to a desire for change and co-operation by accepting the social chapter. It is not something with the horrendous consequences that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned

      763
      Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), sought to put before the House. In fact, it is a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense that in practice means very little. However, we testified to it by saying that in principle we were in favour of monetary union.
      I accept that big concessions have been made towards Europe, but what have we secured in return? The answer is the usual European approach of never giving a sucker an even break. We have got nothing. We were bamboozled by a mess of Amsterdam potage. Some say that we are engaged in—I think that it is probably the right interpretation—tying up the loose ends of Maastricht, but others see it as supercharging Maastricht. In so far as it does that, the process is covert and threatening.
      I am concerned by some of the Bill's consequences. For example, I am concerned to see Europe becoming an entity in respect of foreign, security and defence policy. I am concerned also that the Western European Union accepted that. Indeed, its acceptance is embodied in the treaty. This is potentially disastrous. It has been specifically accepted that the WEU will develop its role as the European political and military body for crisis management.
      There will be
      "further development of its own operational role."
      There is reference to "crisis management mechanisms" and
      "Preliminary Conclusions on the Formulation of a Common European Defence Policy."
      We read of the
      "definition of principles for the use of armed forces".
      Here we have a defence entity emerging. There is the potential for enormous conflict between the role of NATO and that of the WEU along with the European Union. The seeds of confusion are planted in that tension.
      I think that we are seeing the undermining of subsidiarity through the treaty. I think also that The Daily Telegraph was right to argue last week that, once accepted, the principle that I have outlined would make the EU legally a federation. Its jurisdiction would derive not from the authority of member states but would come directly from the European treaties as interpreted by the European Court. I think that that is right. We are accepting that as our principle and, therefore, we are accepting that form of federalism—something both major parties committed themselves in their manifestos to opposing. We committed ourselves to opposing the emergence of a European federation yet such a federation is implicit in the position that has been taken on subsidiarity.
      The real worry is that we are not advancing democracy. The people's Europe is an attractive concept that is much talked about. If it could be a people's Europe I might reconsider my attitude, but at present, and I think for the future—I stand to be converted—the nation state is the only form of government in which we have been able to give people control over their own destinies and is a framework that enriches people of the particular nation. The nation state has done that successfully since the second world war.
      It is no coincidence that Britain's growth slowed and that unemployment quadrupled after we joined the European Union. The nation state is the only way that we have found, yet it is undermined by the treaty because we
      764
      are building on a legalistic entity called Europe that is not government of the people for the people by the people but essentially government of the treaty by the treaty for the treaty—and for those who wrote the treaty and will interpret it.
      The people do not figure in that legalistic morass. We have a constitution that, thanks to the reordering that is implicit in the treaty, is spread over 314 articles and more than 50 protocols. The original concept of Europe, when it was the common market, was to try to build a palace on a cowshed because it stemmed from the common agricultural policy. We are trying now to build a vision on a legal morass.
      The process is self-defeating, because the people cannot identify with the tangled complex of interpretations and qualifications that Europe is emerging as. Europe is bogged down in argument, legalism and interpretation. This is happening at a time when the real battle over the economy is still to be fought in terms of economic and monetary union. We are faced with an abhorrent concept and it is not one the people can view with any enthusiasm. It is a self-defeating approach. I hope very much that it is, and I cannot support it.
      What can I do? Well, I can be cowardly—new Labour, new rules on dissent. If we vote against Government policy en masse, we are more or less all right; vote against it alone—I do not see myself conspicuously supported in the Chamber—and it is rather like "Beyond the Fringe". At this stage in the conflict, do we need a futile gesture? Various Euro-enthusiastic friends have been encouraging me to make that futile gesture by saying, "You must stand up for your principles tonight, Austin." Instead, I shall abstain for them.
      8.38 pm
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) deserves congratulations for being willing to abstain. I know that life is tough under new Labour, and I can assure him that, if he gets into trouble, I shall be glad to make a contribution to his welfare and that of his family.
      I dissagreed with the hon. Gentleman only on the dangers of a federal Europe. I wish that people would stop talking about a federal Europe because when one considers the current state of the European constitution, a federal Europe may be infinitely better than what we have under the treaty. A federal Europe would be democratic; the European Union is not. A federal Europe would set out the lines of responsibility between the centre and the small regions or nation states; the present structure does not. I certainly do not support a federal Europe, but people should accept that what we now have is well beyond a federal Europe and that we are kidding ourselves, as we have done so often, by describing it as a danger.
      You were very kind to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have spoken on all previous European treaties, so I shall be brief. I wish to make three simple points that I hope the Minister will consider. First, although there has been some disagreement on the extent to which power has been passed over, I hope that he will accept the basic point that, once again, we are handing over power from our democratic Parliaments and getting nothing back. All previous European treaties, including the treaty of Rome, have passed power to the centre away from democracies to a new form of indirect democracy controlled by the single European state.

      765
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke about sitting round the table and being positive. Every Prime Minister has done that. All Governments start out in the same way. They are always enthusiastic. They say, "We shall do things differently. We shall be positive and sit around the table and do things sensibly. We are not like the idiots who came before us, and we shall do sensible things." The previous Prime Minister was anxious to be at the heart of Europe. He meant that sincerely, but it all went wrong, as it did for the Prime Minister before him, and it will happen again. I hope that the Minister will accept the simple fact that a great deal of power has gone and nothing has come back. Is it not time for us to approach the European conferences to propose that some powers should return to democracy?
      Secondly, the Minister has presented the treaty as a victory, as though it is in some way better than the other treaties. If he looks back at the speeches made on previous treaties, he will find that the same argument has been put in every case.
      I recall the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill relating to the Maastricht treaty. I felt very guilty about it, because the then Prime Minister was a very nice person, but what he said was ridiculous. Other Ministers—in the Foreign Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—said the same thing. They said, "We are not giving anything away. There is a balance. First, we have the opt-out on the single currency."
      I would love to show today's Ministers the paper issued by the Bank of England on the so-called opt-out. It states:
      "As the UK has opted out, the article 109(4) regulation will not apply directly in the UK. However, most of the relevant provisions will most certainly apply indirectly because they are part of the monetary law governing the Euro and will therefore be recognised by the English courts."
      That was page 86 of the excellent document issued by Eddie George which tells the truth. Those who think otherwise are kidding themselves.
      We then had the social chapter opt-out, which was also a joke, because, when it came to the 48-hour week, we found to our horror that all the social chapter measures could be brought in under other majority vote proceedings. We then had all the great celebrations about subsidiarity. They were also a joke. Although some people think that there is some danger under the Amsterdam treaty, basically they think that it is okay.
      The Government are now claiming a new concession, which I understand was achieved by the previous Government, although that may be a wild political rumour, guaranteeing our frontiers. I wish that they would look at what is happening in the European Court as it affects some of my constituents. The Government may think that we have control of our borders, but in practical terms they are being undermined by the European Court.
      The speech by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) illustrated the undue optimism to which I have referred. He referred to the terrible business of fraud in Europe. He said that we now think in terms of £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion being lost through fraud. He said that we needed a majority vote to deal with the problem. I know that he is an optimist and
      766
      a very kindly person and I am sure that he is kind to children and dogs, but what difference will majority voting make?
      We have a series of policies, such as the common agricultural policy, that are an invitation to fraud. Even if all the Ministers sit round trying to take decisions by majority vote, it will not make any difference. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember all the pledges made by the previous Government—and, indeed, the present Government—about reforming the CAP. It is so pathetic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) shares my outrage at the amount of money we spend on agriculture. Last time they said that they would reduce spending by cutting prices, and introduced area payments as compensation. They paid out the compensation, but sadly the prices did not fall, and the CAP is more expensive than ever.
      My third and final point relates to the tragic lack of public interest in the whole business. A relatively large number of Conservative Members are present tonight. I have been most encouraged by the new intake of Back Benchers. In previous Governments, some of the Back Benchers on both sides of the House have been absolute rubbish. This time, we have a wonderful intake of people who are committed and concerned. However, there are very few Labour Members present tonight. They should not think that I am attacking them, as they usually have far more Members present than we do, given the limited number of Opposition Members. It is clear that there is no great interest in the subject.
      When Referendum party candidates stood at the election, many people thought that they would wake everyone up and that people would either shout at them and say that it was rubbish or vote for them, but they made hardly any difference—although there was a serious marginal impact on the Conservative party.
      I hope that the Government will accept that, when we pass multitudes of democratic power to non-democratic institutions, we have to get people interested, so that we either support it and wave a flag or oppose it. The plain fact is that people are not agitated, and nor is the House of Commons. In my view, that is because they are not being told what is happening to them, their families and their futures.
      Although it is dangerous to ask the Government to spend money—I always try to avoid asking Governments to spend money—perhaps they should consider setting up a European truth campaign. I am not asking for a great deal of expenditure as I would not want to get involved in all the nonsense of agriculture. I would simply like the Government to place a little advertisement—perhaps it could be sponsored by politicians or people who want to promote European truth. I understand that a former deputy leader of the Conservative party was interested in promoting European truth.
      We need to tell people what is actually happening—how much the European Community costs the average family in Britain. It is an awful lot of money. I have the figure here, but I would not think of trying to spread propaganda. I would like the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—who also say that they believe in truth—to agree to tell people what it has actually cost them.
      I remember the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, quite rightly jumping up and down with rage at the possibility of an annual cost of £1,000 million, or £20 per

      767
      person. She said that it was a ridiculous amount of money. It is far more now. I should like the Government to tell us what our net contribution is costing the average family.
      The Confederation of British Industry is desperately enthusiastic about the EC, perhaps because the big firms would much prefer to deal with the Commission than with a democratic Government. I also understand that a great deal of money comes to the CBI from the EC, although that would not influence anything. The business community should tell people what has happened to our trade. I have the impression that most people think that the EU is good for trade, but of course it has been a disaster. The figures that I have seen, which may be wholly inaccurate, say that we now have a total deficit of £100,000 million.
      I should also like people to know about the volume of legislation. How many laws are introduced under European rules that we cannot control? What is the truth? I should also like to ask about fraud. It is important that we should tell people the truth.
      The great sadness is that we have negotiated another great treaty that will pass a huge amount of power to Europe at a time when Europe is getting into a deeper and deeper mess. If hon. Members are interested, they should look at tonight's Evening Standard, where they will see that the pound has gone up again, not because people like Britain or have confidence in it, but because they are looking for somewhere to put their currency to get it out of Europe because they are terrified about what may happen with the single currency.
      It is desperately sad that we are ratifying another treaty to hand over more power. It is desperately sad that the Government, like previous Governments, are optimistic about what will happen. The greatest tragedy is that the public are not greatly motivated by this huge subject that we are debating. Like most Members of Parliament, I get a huge number of letters every week. I cannot recall one—this is tragic—about the Amsterdam treaty. I had some a few weeks ago on a tiny issue—I mentioned it to the Minister—relating to the transfer of power to Europe to discuss issues such as sexual orientation. Apart from that, I have had nothing.
      The public should be concerned. It would be great if the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats agreed that people should be told what is happening. People should be told the truth. Then they might wake up and might not be presented with any more desperately worrying, undemocratic treaties like this one and all those that have gone before.
      8.50 pm
      Mr. Cash: What are we going to do about this treaty? The short answer is that no doubt we shall vote against it as a party, but despite the huge number of amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, the guillotine has been imposed. I tabled more than 100 amendments with some of my hon. Friends. They have all been voted down by the massive majority that the Government enjoy for the time being. Here we are, on Third Reading, with three Labour Back Benchers present. One of them has said that he will abstain; another, a member of the European Legislation Committee, is preparing to make what I imagine will be a short speech before the Minister replies; one other is sitting there in a Rodin-like posture, thinking about what he might do next.
      768
      There is no interest in the Bill or the treaty. There are about six people in the Strangers Gallery and one in the Press Gallery.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make any reference to outside the Chamber.
      Mr. Cash: I accept your strictures on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the reality is that there is no interest in the treaty or in the Bill. That is a disgrace for democracy in the United Kingdom.
      The Opposition have played their part. A significant number—there may not be many—of Conservative Members have made exceptional speeches, attempting, within the constraints of the guillotine that has been imposed, to delve into the issues involved in the treaty and bring them out. Even if the media—the radio, the television and even the press—are not remotely interested in the future of the United Kingdom, Conservative Members have demonstrated their concern with some exceptional speeches, showing brilliant analysis and research.
      Debates on the Maastricht treaty took about 60 days. It is astonishing that this Bill has been given no more than 20 or so hours of debate. It is a disgrace and an indictment of the Government that they have allowed that. There has been no filibuster from the Conservatives on any amendment. If there were any justification for a guillotine, the Government would have to point to some attempt to extend the debate beyond reasonable parameters. That has not happened.
      The treaty contains a protocol—not merely a declaration, but a protocol—on scrutiny by national Parliaments. If the Government were even remotely interested in proper analysis and scrutiny, they would have allowed a decent amount of time to discuss the fundamental questions facing the future of the United Kingdom. Scarcely any time was given to qualified majority voting, for example. Other issues include the role of the Court of Justice, the relationship between the common foreign and security policy and NATO, or unemployment, to which the Government appear to give so much attention.
      The Minister made simple, uninformed comments about fraud. He assumed that there will be a diminution in fraud as a result of these arrangements, but he gave no reasons. He knows perfectly well that the other member states are scarcely interested in the subject. We have discussed subsidiarity today. There are also discussions to be had about the social chapter and the employment prospects of our constituents.
      The treaty of Amsterdam is no more than a finger in the dyke. In fact, it is even less than that. There is no intention to bring about the necessary reversal in the process of European integration, which is the object of those who are driving the federal goal forward. We should identify the main architects of the process to which the Government have given in by acquiescence and appeasement. Chancellor Kohl has made it abundantly clear that his objective is political union. There has been no attempt to trim that back. No negotiating position has been adopted that would have any effect on the fundamental movement towards European integration.
      As Chancellor Kohl has said, European integration and German unity are two sides of the same coin. That is the name of the game. Through qualified majority voting,

      769
      with countries that are economically and politically dependent on Germany, they will create the kind of Europe that they want. That is not the Europe that the British people want. It is not even the Europe that the German people want. That is the irony of the situation. The Bill is fundamentally un-European and undemocratic.
      At a recent meeting with members of the Nordic Council, I asked many Ministers and distinguished Members of Parliament from those countries what would happen if a question on Amsterdam and political integration were put to their people. They all agreed that they would not get it through. "So what are you doing about it?" I asked. They replied, "Oh, our countries are too small. We have no option. We have to go along with it."
      The process is being driven by fears and concerns and by the manipulation of the French and German Governments, who are determined to achieve their aims at all costs. The Government stand indicted of having appeased and acquiesced in that movement. The Minister ought to reply to these points. As far as I can judge, he has not replied to one question that was put to him on Second Reading or in Committee; I doubt whether he will answer any on Third Reading.
      As I look at the treaty, I see that Minister for Foreign Affairs after Minister for Foreign Affairs has signed it, including Dr. Klaus Kinkel, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Federal Chancellor. The list goes on to include
      "Mr. Douglas Henderson, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office".
      I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but where is the Foreign Secretary's name? Why did not he sign the treaty? That is what I would like to know. The treaty is a cop-out and a sell-out by the Labour Government.
      Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to the Minister, who gave lengthy consideration in Committee to the points that we raised. In fact, he took an hour to go through all the points that were raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, which I think members of the Committee appreciated. However, since the guillotine motion was imposed, his approach has become necessarily slapdash to an appalling degree.
      Mr. Cash: I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Minister is a decent and—although it is difficult for me to say—nice chap, but that is not enough.
      Mr. Bercow: There is no room for sentiment on this matter.
      Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend reminds me, it is pretty difficult for me to say something like that about members of the Government.
      We are dealing with fundamental questions. We are not simply going through the motions of debating transport or environment policy. This Bill is about the United Kingdom's constitution. It is more important than the Scotland Bill. The Scotland Bill might be very important—indeed, I tabled 62 amendments to it—but this Bill is about the future government of the United Kingdom, and the difficulties that it will create for future generations cannot possibly be underestimated.
      770
      The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spoke about his desire for home rule, and said that the treaty was no more than modest progress. There has been no serious opposition to the proposals from the establishment in the United Kingdom—nothing from the media to speak of, no reporting, no firm action, as I believe has been necessary. There is only one way through the morass, and it goes back to Maastricht itself. We must renegotiate the treaties. There is no other way forward.
      To be against the idea of a single currency as it evolves—even for 10 years—presupposes that the previous Government could not have adopted such a position. It is therefore incumbent on the Conservative party to give the kind of consideration to renegotiation that would lead us to a new horizon, a truly European horizon, which would be in the interests of the people not only of this country but of Europe as a whole. There is no doubt that the Conservatives have won the argument. When historians come to read these debates, they will judge for themselves, but I believe that we have won the argument hands down. No reply has been given, and hardly any Labour Members have spoken.
      If people do not take any notice of what we say, if argument, persuasion and reason mean nothing any more in the House of Commons, and if the media will take no interest in what we say, we shall, as I have hinted before, have to take more direct action. If the measures require it—and I believe they do—we will take action to ensure that the British people understand what is going on. The question is not one of ameliorating a minor measure; it is about fundamental changes in the UK's future. Therefore, as I said earlier, just as Parnell fought to ensure that people in Ireland obtained legislative independence, so in this country are we bound to take the necessary action to ensure that we retain—indeed, regain—the legislative independence that is required for the United Kingdom.
      9.3 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great pleasure to follow such veterans of these debates as my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), and particularly my Lincolnshire neighbour the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who made a number of interesting points, all of which I agreed with.
      A feature of the debate has been that every speaker has bemoaned the lack of public interest. Why is that? I think it is because the treaty—indeed, the language of Europe—is dressed up in such a beguiling way. To an ordinary member of the public, the social chapter sounds so reasonable. Of course we want to protect people in the workplace. To a member of the ordinary public, subsidiarity sounds so reasonable—as do concerns about the protection of the environment. Despite the noble efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and others, it has been difficult to stir up public interest.
      The devil lies in the detail in these treaties, and, in the few minutes vouchsafed to me, I shall deal with one issue which has not been dealt with so far—the clause on discrimination. Again, it seems so very sensible. How could anyone object to an article which says:
      "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,

      771
      may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation"?
      Nobody in our country could, at first sight, possibly argue with such a provision.
      Once the Bill has been passed—as it will be, with a massive majority—and once the treaty is ratified by this country, the clause could have many unintended effects. Its application and its wording are unpredictable. The Government have assured us—and will go on doing so, if they bother to reply to this point—that the Council must legislate under this clause. As we well know—it has been argued effectively by many of my hon. Friends in the debate—the European Court of Justice will seek, under those words, to extend the effect of the clause. Paradoxically, that could have an unintended but serious impact on religious liberties in the United Kingdom.
      The United Kingdom has an enviable record in European history of protecting religious and other liberties. This difficult issue is best left to member states. Whatever one's views on the European convention on human rights and its incorporation into UK law—something that the Government are now doing; it is being dealt with in the other place—it is a sounder basis for dealing with the protection of liberties than the article that I have just quoted.
      Specific EU legislation in specific areas can deal with specific problems, but if we ratify such a general clause without thinking it through, it could have a serious impact on religious liberties. Of course the European Court of Human Rights has a human rights agenda. That is fair enough, although many of us have expressed concerns about that court over the years. The problem with the European Court of Justice is that it will have a concern with human rights in the context of closer European integration. What was intended to be, fundamentally, an essentially economic court will now start wandering into very sensitive areas.
      We have seen how that can cause major problems: for instance, in the Grogan case, where Irish abortion law—decided after a referendum and incorporated in the Irish constitution—was overturned by the court. The Irish Government had to get a special provision in the Maastricht treaty to determine their own affairs on an issue about which the Irish people feet strongly. This county has an advanced corpus of legislation on race and discrimination, and there is general support for that legislation. There might be problems with religious or other discrimination in certain countries in the EU, such as Greece—I know not. However, those issues should be addressed directly.
      What we have here is a catch-all clause. Surely it is a question of balancing the right not to be discriminated against with the right to practise a religion or hold views freely and associate with others with common ideas. One of those rights should not undermine the other. I contend that that is what the treaty will do.
      During the past 50 years, we have built up a great corpus of legislation. For example, in state education, discrimination against teachers on the basis of their religious opinions has been outlawed for more than 50 years. In Northern Ireland, legislation bars discrimination on the grounds of religion. Those provisions are already in our law. What need has this country for the treaty?
      All our laws contain common-sense exceptions. One has to apply common sense in this matter. I shall give a few examples of discrimination in the public sector. Are
      772
      there to be court cases about those issues? Many women object to mixed-sex wards in hospitals; should such wards close? Should the magistracy be open to adults under the age of 27? Should doctors be able to refuse fertility treatment to women in their late 40s? Should Sikh pupils be forbidden from carrying metal knives around their necks? Should the institution of marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples? Will the Church of England be able to keep control over who is married in its churches? Should Church schools be allowed to require head teachers to be practising Christians? Should they be able to insist that teachers of sex education personally adhere to that church's teaching on chastity outside of marriage?
      Those are all difficult questions of conscience about which various religions and groups may feel strongly, but other people may have no concern. Are people who want to practise their faith in their own way to find themselves in a court of law because of the treaty that we are passing tonight in a Chamber that is three-quarters empty? This is not merely some arid debate about treaties or laws. It concerns everyday life and is therefore important. So the rights of one group have to be balanced with the rights of the majority.
      I mentioned the example of Sikh boys, who are indeed refused the right to wear metal knives in school, but may, for instance, be permitted to wear plastic knives. Sometimes, United Kingdom law is based on Christian principles, which can require discrimination. For centuries we have required the courts to discriminate in many areas. For example, bigamous marriages are legitimate in some religions, countries and sects, but are not legal in the United Kingdom.
      In conclusion, we have no written constitution in this country, but our religious freedoms have developed over centuries. Within Europe, we have a reputation that is second to none for protecting people's right to speak their mind and to practise their religion and faith in the way that they want. That record has not necessarily enjoyed by every European country. The greatest evils that have befallen the continent have resulted from discrimination based on race or religion. We know that, but in this country, despite the fact that we have not adhered to this type of treaty before and that we have no written constitution, we have a truly enviable record.
      Are we entitled to take the risk of undermining the tolerance and progress that have taken centuries to build up through the common law? We are not, so we should have serious doubts about that aspect of the treaty.
      9.13 pm
      Mr. Rammell: I am happy to give the treaty and the Government's negotiation of it my whole-hearted support. I fundamentally and passionately believe that it is a good treaty and a good deal for Britain. Despite the self-congratulation on the Opposition Benches, they have not put their arguments forcefully and no arguments have been won.
      Conservative Members constantly draw attention to the absence of Labour Members in the Chamber. Perhaps they are absent because they have not been wholly convinced by the arguments advanced consistently here and elsewhere by Conservative Members in the past five years. They have not convinced their own party, let alone the House as a whole.
      My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Europe rightly drew attention to the bizarre call by the Leader of the Opposition, in October or November,

      773
      I think, for a referendum on the outcome of the Amsterdam treaty, and said that it had apparently been ditched. There was a shaking of heads among Conservative Members when he said that, so I would be interested to hear whether that policy—clearly a policy of opposition rather than of government—has indeed been ditched.
      The shadow Foreign Secretary evinced much anger—fabricated, I believe—about the use of the guillotine. I say fabricated, because the whole House knows that the guillotine was used with impunity by the previous Tory Government over 18 years, on many Bills dealing with many different issues. His criticisms ring somewhat hollow.
      Mr. Blunt: If the hon. Gentleman examines the history of the use of the guillotine in the past 18 years, he will not find a single example that is worse, in terms of curtailing debate, than the one introduced on this legislation. When the guillotine was introduced on the Single European Act, it was in the face of a deliberate filibuster, with spurious points of order and other delaying tactics. None of that existed in the discussion of the current Bill.
      Mr. Rammell: One Government's filibuster is another Opposition's reasoned argument; or the other way round. The guillotine was used on the Single European Act and on a host of other legislation. That justifies the point, and undermines Conservative criticisms.
      I was intrigued to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary imploring the House of Lords to disrupt the Bill. That does not accord with Conservative Members' passionate defence of democracy and the sovereignty of the House. They are willing to undermine the actions and views of the House through the actions of a wholly undemocratic second Chamber. For Conservative Members, British nationalism, not democracy, is paramount in British institutions. That is a wholly different matter, and members of the public will be aware of that.
      Mr. Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the process of European federalism that is under way can claim popular support, when elections to the European Parliament—one of the Community's institutions—consistently bring a turnout of under 40 per cent? Is he seriously arguing that, in the light of the continued resistance of many member states to referendums on crucial constitutional questions, the process that he so favours has anything remotely resembling majority popular support? If so, I do not think that he inhabits this planet.
      Mr. Rammell: Conservative Members have often based their argument against the European Parliament on the turnout for elections. They think that it is a clinching argument, undermining the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament. It would be interesting to know whether they took a similar view on local government, in which the turnout for elections is of a similar order.
      The turnout for elections to the European Parliament is as low as it is, first because people do not understand decision making in the European Union and the
      774
      contribution that the Parliament makes to it; and secondly because the Parliament's powers are limited and they accord it the respect that they believe that it to deserve in relation to the power that they perceive it to hold. That is why the turnout for the elections is as low as it is and, over time, we must address that issue and change the situation.
      The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) lamented the fact that the public have no interest in the treaty or the Bill. There are two reasons why the House and the public do not take sufficient interest in those issue. The first is a lack of clarity about the way in which Europe reaches decisions and effects results. The second is the extreme nature of the views put forward by some Conservative Members who exaggerate and distort the treaties and everything else that comes from Europe.
      Mr. Blunt: The reason is not the extreme views put forward by Conservative Members but the extreme views that are not put forward by those who are pursuing a European agenda that they know does not enjoy popular support.
      Mr. Rammell: I shall give an example of what I mean by exaggeration for effect and the distortion of what is proposed. When we discussed the provision in the treaty that clearly addresses discrimination on the basis of sex, race, disability and sexuality, we heard supposedly reasonable Conservative Members refer to paedophilia and bigamy, both of which are outlawed in every country of the European Union and have nothing to do with the anti-discrimination measure. Such tactics underline the way in which people's understanding of, and confidence in, Europe are blurred by the extreme views advanced by some Conservative Members.
      Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman has now said three times that the public in this country and elsewhere in Europe do not understand European decision making. If that is so, why does he want more decisions governing their lives to be taken by that process?
      Mr. Rammell: I want the decision-making process in Europe to be opened up. That is why I believe that Council of Ministers meetings should be opened up and why I welcome the fact that the treaty will provide a six-week delay on the scrutiny reserve. I also welcome the increased powers that will be given to the Conference of European Affairs Committees, recognising its role in opening up the decision-making process on behalf of national Parliaments. What is flawed is not necessarily the nature of European institutions but the way that decisions are made.
      Mr. Bercow: I am pleased to learn of the hon. Gentleman's interest in public opinion. The inference could be drawn from what he has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that he would favour a referendum in all member states of the European Union on the Amsterdam treaty. The hon. Gentleman signals that he is not in favour of that level of democracy—we should know what level of democracy he does favour. Does he wish to take this opportunity to tell the House that, unless the people of Germany are given a referendum on whether to participate in the European single currency, German participation

      775
      should not be allowed to proceed and the single currency should not go ahead in the expectation of German involvement?
      Mr. Rammell: We constantly hear from Conservative Members that we should not develop a federal Europe—that we should be a Europe of nation states. I agree, and if that is so, it would be unwarranted for me or any other elected politician in this country to preach to another country about its decision-making process on Europe.
      The hon. Member for Stone is not in his place, but I was fascinated by the insight he gave into Tory party politics on European monetary union. I understood him to say—perhaps he will be able to clarify his remarks on another occasion—that the Tory policy of putting off the decision on EMU for 10 years could not have been carried out in government and could be adopted only in opposition. I agree. Had the Tory party won the general election on 1 May, it would have taken a different view in government. Conservative Members shake their heads, but they should consult Hansard, because that was implicit in what he said.
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is courteous and it is not like him to insult another hon. Gentleman without having warned him. Is it in order for him so to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) when he is not in the Chamber and has not been forewarned of the attack?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has played a full part in this debate. It is entirely a matter for him whether he is in the Chamber at any given moment. I have heard nothing out of order.
      Mr. Rammell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone will be able to pursue his arguments. I understood him to be saying what I suggested. That gives us an insight into the politics of the Tory party on the single currency.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rammell: I shall give way just once more—I know that Opposition Members want to speak.
      Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the unanswered questions of this debate is that of the effect of fixed exchange rates on unemployment? Neither the Minister nor Labour Members have been able to explain away the fact that, whenever Britain has taken part in fixed exchange rates, unemployment has gone up exponentially. Can he explain that to the satisfaction of Conservative Members and of some of his colleagues?
      Mr. Rammell: The Amsterdam treaty does not refer specifically to economic and monetary union or fixed exchange rates, but I shall happily answer the question. If a single currency works, as I believe that it will, it will tackle currency speculation and lead to more stable exchange rates and therefore, in the long run, lower interest rates and higher growth, which would lead to greater job creation. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think
      776
      back to September 1992, when the pound was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism by international currency speculation.
      Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rammell: No, I have given way several times and other hon. Members want to speak.
      The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) talked about a European truth campaign. I am not sure what that means, but I favour ensuring that people understand the arguments about Europe. However, when it was suggested that the Government should use European Union funds to run a balanced information campaign on the pros and cons of a single currency, Conservative Members vehemently opposed the idea. I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. That undermines his argument.
      Barring a few minor details, and the key issue of the social chapter, the treaty and the Bill are the ones that a Conservative Government would have brought back from Amsterdam had they been re-elected on 1 May. That wholly undermines the arguments of Tory Front-Bench spokesmen.
      The Euro-sceptics, who are, as usual, heavily represented, have a more important question to answer. They have made it abundantly clear, tonight and on other occasions, that they are opposed, root and branch, to the European Union and its development. They would have opposed any treaty that any conceivable Government could have brought back. They must explain whether such views are compatible with continued membership of the European Union. The hon. Member for Stone came close to addressing that question. If, as I believe, their views are not compatible with continued membership of the European Union, we should have an honest and open debate, and they should openly advocate the case for withdrawal.
      When the Euro-sceptics honestly and openly go into that campaign, I ask them to reflect on the fact that there have been two occasions since the second world war when British political parties have honestly and openly campaigned with a hostile attitude to Europe and a negative attitude to the European Community or Union. It happened once in 1983 under the Labour party and once in 1997 under the Conservative party. On both occasions, those political parties suffered the biggest defeats in their political history. The fundamental reason for that is that British nationalism and British chauvinism is skin deep. The stance adopted by the Conservative party on European issues has forced people to confront the reality of what life would be like if we withdrew from Europe. That is why I fundamentally believe that, given your current views, you are unelectable.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair.
      Mr. Rammell: I believe that, given their views, Conservative Members are unelectable. I welcome that, partly because it means that the Labour Government will be in office for many years to come, but I am realistic enough to realise that, at some stage in the future, it is possible that the Conservative party will come back to power. If and when that happens, I hope for the sake of

      777
      the country that wiser counsels will have prevailed within the Conservative party and caused it to abandon the dangerous route down which it is currently attempting to go.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Gill: Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I regard this as a sad day for the House, the country and the British people. It is also an extremely sad day for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and others like him who find themselves having to abstain on tonight's vote.
      The hon. Gentleman and others have fought long and hard against many aspects of European integration. By their determination to articulate their views so well, they have obviously attracted a following among the British people, who will be extremely let down by their actions tonight.
      We understand the pressures on hon. Members to obey their party Whips. We understand why certain Members, instead of voting against something that they have opposed for almost their entire political careers, will fail to do so tonight. We understand the reasons only too well, but people outside will never understand it. I fear for the credibility of those hon. Members who know in their heart of hearts that they should vote against the Bill for all the reasons that they have articulated consistently year after year.
      That lack of action does not just destroy the credibility of those hon. Members who are seen to be reneging on all the promises they have made over the years, but reflects on the credibility of us all. It reflects on the credibility of the House. Several times during the debate, hon. Members have questioned the lack of interest shown by the public in what is going on in Parliament tonight. Is it any wonder that the people should become so apathetic about the affairs of the House when they see not just one, but one after another, hon. Member peel away from the strongly held views that they have articulated for so long and which they have led the people to believe that they will continue to articulate and vote for?
      Apart from the fact that, on this occasion, Government rebels will not vote against this particular European Bill, there is a sense of deja vu about our proceedings. In Committee, we have witnessed Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box offering inadequate explanations or answers to questions put to them. I understand why that is. I understand as well as they do that the treaty has to go through and that, if they accept but one of the arguments deployed in Committee, the treaty falls, so Ministers simply cannot accept any amendment.
      Ministers are on quite sound ground with some of the amendments, and can argue and tell the movers of the amendments why they are wrong and the Government are right, but that does not apply to all the amendments tabled in Committee. Some of the answers given by the Government are totally inadequate, just as during the last Parliament Conservative Ministers at the Dispatch Box were unable to give satisfactory answers to the reasonable questions put to them. Once again in the House of Commons, the argument has been lost, but the Government will inevitably win the vote.
      As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), there has been no answer to the question of how we are to reconcile ourselves to fixed
      778
      exchange rates and unemployment—that is too difficult a question to be answered, so we skate around it. When I put that question to the Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago, he said that I must understand that, when we had fixed exchange rates previously, we had a Conservative Government—as if that explained everything, as if that was a satisfactory answer and as if that made the Government's views absolutely right when in fact they were absolutely wrong.
      There has been some talk in the debate about obfuscation; that is the polite way of referring to half-truths, deceptions and downright lies. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who have ventured to suggest that, had the British people been told the truth about European and had it been explained to them that we are talking not about a new form of democracy but about the integration of our country into a European Union, they would not have voted yes in the 1975 referendum; nor would they have been as tolerant with their politicians as they have been thus far.
      I have no complaint against the Commission: generally speaking, what the European Commission says is what it intends to do and what it intends should happen; and what is written in the treaties is what is intended should happen. Where I depart is from those politicians who pretend that, once it is written and we have entered into a legal and binding contract as per these treaties, it can then somehow and miraculously all be altered.
      We are not entering a democracy, and I invite hon. Members to consider that there can be no democracy in any nation or any group of nations when it is not possible for the electorate of that nation or group of nations to remove the people by whom they are governed. I know of no means by which we in this country can remove the European Government, and I invite the Minister to tell us how, under the great scheme of things, it is possible to remove those who, in future, will be charge of our destiny in the European Union.
      The European Union is not a democracy—it is a collective, and one need only look at what is happening in our farming and fishing industries to know that. Worse is to follow, because that collectivism is to be applied to our economy and, as a result of the treaties, Europe will have a collective economy. The Government will say that they are going to achieve reform in Europe, but the question they must answer is how they are to achieve that reform. They know as well as I do that to achieve any dramatic or radical reform in the European Community requires unanimity.
      It is all very well for Ministers to say that we will get reform of the agricultural policy, the fisheries policy, or any other policy, but that is just a cop-out. It sounds good, it fobs people off and it buys a little breathing space, but I invite the Minister to tell us how he will get unanimity to change, for example, the fundamentals of the common fisheries policy. How will he get unanimity to change the fundamentals of the common agricultural policy, and so on? Those are the real questions, the unanswered questions, and I invite the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box tonight and answer them.
      More than anything else, I fear that we are creating a situation in which hon. Members are effectively to be neutered. In an earlier speech at the beginning of the

      779
      Committee stage, I warned of the effect of neutering Members. I have a serious warning for anyone who will listen to it about the long-term effects of neutering Members and depriving them of the ability to give satisfaction to the people who put them here: this country and all the other countries that do it will descend into anarchy.
      The European Union is promoted by a political elite. One of my hon. Friends referred to the attitude of the Nordic Council, which illustrates that point. The Government have said that there is no constitutional bar to the single currency, but there is a constitutional bar to completing a total integration of the European nations in the European Union, which is what we are doing. It is a constitutional bar because it removes from the people who put us here the right to get rid of us or to get rid of the people who make the decisions that affect their lives.
      I have been consistent throughout my time in the House on matters of the European Union. I believe that I am right, and I shall go on saying what I believe to be the truth. It behoves all of us, regardless of whether we are in government or in opposition, to tell the truth. Only in that way will we get the British people back on the side of their Parliament and back on the side of the people whom they sent to represent them.
      There is much more that I could say on this all-important issue. To my Conservative colleagues I simply say in conclusion that there is only one game left in town, and that is to defeat the single currency and to defend the freedom of the pound sterling.
      9.41 pm
      Mr. Blunt: In moving the Third Reading, the Minister said that this was a good treaty. I do not think that anyone can legitimately make that claim for the treaty, which is unintelligible to and unapproachable by ordinary members of the public. It is why the public and the media have displayed an almost complete lack of interest in the debate. A number of hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have made that point eloquently.
      The treaty has failed in its central objectives for the UK. It has failed to advance, even at the most basic level, the interests of the bigger countries in promoting democracy by weighting their influence through weighting the number of their votes in the Council and the Commission. It has made no progress on the issues of enlargement. We shall wait to see the other parts of the European Union that do not have an interest in enlargement—the farming lobby and Club Med—begin to obstruct the process of enlargement.
      Today, the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Hungary addressed a joint meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Select Committees. They will be sadly disappointed at the conduct of enlargement negotiations, as they are put off year after year.
      In Committee, we have heard many sedentary interventions from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, sadly, is not in his place now. Such interventions go to the heart of the problem involving the construction of Europe: the future of the European project is beginning to lack democratic legitimacy.
      My experience of South Yorkshire as a soldier in a South Yorkshire Regiment tells me that it is beyond belief that the hon. Member for Rotherham represents the views
      780
      of the people of Rotherham. From my experience of the people of South Yorkshire, I know that the opinions that he expresses in this place about the future of Europe are completely at odds with the instincts of the British people.
      A sort of schizophrenia affects the Conservative party as much, in a sense, as it does the Government—and indeed the whole country—about our approach to Europe, and the treaty goes nowhere near beginning to address those issues for the United Kingdom. The time is coming when we must make up our minds whether we are honestly going to commit to, in effect, a united states of Europe.
      We nearly heard such language from the Liberal Benches during the debate. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spoke about his wish for a federal United Kingdom. He then spoke about a federal Europe. He should have gone on to say a federal united states of Europe—a federal state in which authority is delegated down from the centre. If he expressed what he believes in those clear terms, we would understand exactly where the Liberals were coming from.
      However, even the greatest enthusiasts for European integration on the Liberal Benches haver around with language, and are not prepared to state their position clearly to the British people. The enthusiasts for Europe on both sides of the House should not treat the people of the United Kingdom with contempt, by obfuscating their true objectives; they should make the position clear.
      The treaty of Amsterdam has served to undermine the competitive advantages that the Conservative Government carved out for the United Kingdom at Maastricht. The Labour Government have given way on the social chapter. Our competitive position as a country will be undermined. Therefore, all Conservative Members, regardless of their position on Europe, can unite to vote against a Third Reading of the Bill.
      Within every political party, a decision must be taken about our whole approach to Europe. The treaty does not remotely address those key issues. It is about time that we started to debate in this place, honestly and objectively, what the European Union should be and what it should not be. Then we should invite our country to reach a decision.
      9.46 pm
      Mr. Letwin: I shall be extraordinarily brief. I just wish say that in Committee, I—in parallel with many other Conservative Members—raised three points, each of which, if they were right, were important.
      First, I alleged that the powers of the European Court of Justice were being vastly enhanced—specifically, that the basis was being laid for the eventual intervention of the European Court of Justice in British criminal law.
      Secondly, I alleged that the presidency of the Commission was being given political direction of the Commission, with the intent of laying the basis for the eventual elevation of the presidency of the Commission to a role similar to that of the President of the United States—the role of president of Europe in the sense understood by Mr. Delors.
      Thirdly, I alleged that protocol No. 7, by its definitions of subsidiarity, permitted the European Union to adopt any objective in any specific action and to legitimise that action—be it a directive, a regulation or a decision—as

      781
      conforming with subsidiarity merely by virtue of the fact that it conformed with the objective adopted by the European Union.
      Those are three serious allegations. It is an extraordinary state of affairs when, throughout the proceedings in Committee, the Minister ostensibly responsible for Europe has not denied, referred to or refuted any of those allegations, but has merely passed them over in silence.
      Those allegations may be false. I am but a new Member of this House, earnestly striving for truth, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It does not seem to me a disgraceful thing for a Member of Parliament to try to do. It does seem to me disgraceful that the Minister for Europe should not answer—should not think that it matters whether he answers—in a debate, however curtailed, on this treaty and this Bill. He should have answered those points and many others like them made by Conservative Members. Either he should answer our points, or he should desist from being the Minister for Europe and take up a lowlier post, leaving his job to someone who is willing to take on the argument.
      9.49 pm
      Mr. Streeter: It is no surprise that the Government have chosen to crush proper scrutiny of the treaty. Throughout our deliberations, the extent to which the Government failed at Amsterdam has become abundantly clear. Through a mixture of bad judgment and incompetence, the Government made many concessions to others but received nothing in return. The treaty is good news for the European institutions and bad news for the nation state.
      First and foremost, the treaty is unacceptable because it imposes on us the burden of the social chapter. It is no coincidence that, when they took office, the Government inherited the strongest economy in Europe, an economy which prospered under a Conservative Government who were prepared to defend the national interest in Europe and to guarantee jobs and prosperity for the British people.
      That hard-won advantage was given away at Amsterdam. The Government talk about reducing the burden on business; then they do the very reverse. All that is doubly ironic, as the treaty adds the promotion of employment to the list of Community objectives. That led to the so-called employment summit at Luxembourg. Will the Minister tell us how many jobs were created in Europe as a result of that summit? When will Labour realise that Governments do not create jobs? It is businesses, entrepreneurs and risk takers who, free from bureaucratic burdens, create jobs: not Governments, not summits, not more meetings.
      Britain's competitive advantage has been surrendered, and if for no other reason than that, the treaty should not be ratified. That is why we will oppose it tonight.
      On their return from Amsterdam, Ministers sought to present the treaty as innocuous—a technical treaty that did no more than make common-sense improvements to the operation of Europe. As our debates have shown, that is simply not true. Ministers have failed to understand the long-term implications of what they have signed. Nowhere is that ministerial incompetence more
      782
      obvious than in respect of the opt-in to border controls. The Foreign Secretary thought that he had agreed to one arrangement—opt-in by QMV—only to discover that he had agreed to something completely different—opt-in by unanimity. Explanations for that blunder have changed almost weekly. We still await a clear explanation; the House still awaits an apology.
      Changes made to the institutional arrangements of the Union are not merely technical. They are significant changes in the nature and powers of key European institutions. Time and again, the treaty takes powers from member states and passes them to the European institutions—all for nothing in return. Perhaps the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), a Labour Member, put it best earlier when he talked of big concessions for nothing in return. That sums up the Amsterdam treaty.
      We are told that Britain is to be compensated for the loss of our second Commissioner by a re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers. But there is no commitment in the treaty to re-weighting. It provides either for a re-weighting of votes or for the use of dual majority. Does the Minister accept that the latter is of no use whatever to Britain, and that it may sometimes act against our interests?
      The Minister has insisted that he would not agree to our second Commissioner being removed without re-weighting. Why, then, did he agree to the inclusion of the alternative in the treaty? The Government have also given away our unfettered right to choose the British Commissioner for as long as we have one. Currently, member states must consult, but can ignore the opinion of, the Commission president on whom to nominate. Now the president is to have an unlimited veto over member states' nominees to the Commission.
      The Minister also said that it was unthinkable that that power would ever be used. Why, then, was it written into the treaty? I assure the Minister that there are plenty of people in Brussels to whom the use of the veto is far from unthinkable. Does not history suggest that European institutions, especially the Parliament, find ways of using to the full every new power that they are given? What power the treaty gives them. Take the president of the Commission. Henceforth, all members are to work under his political guidance. When combined with the existing provisions of article 160, that effectively gives the president the power to hire and fire. For that reason, we object to the power.
      The new power has nothing to do with good management, and everything to do with transforming the Commission into an overtly political body led by an overtly political president—one man, total power, surrounded by placemen depending on patronage: a new Labour solution, if ever there was one.
      Unlike Labour, successive Conservative Governments have a record of success in European negotiations. Conservative Ministers ensured that when Britain agreed to the extensions of QMV in 1986, we guaranteed the creation of the single market—a reform which has brought more benefits to Britain than to any other country. We accepted QMV in limited areas for a specific purpose and got a real benefit in return. There were no such successes for Britain at Amsterdam. Britain's veto was just given away, with nothing in return.

      783
      As a result of Labour's failures at Amsterdam, the European Parliament has, among other new powers, a right of veto in no fewer than 23 new areas of policy. That, in a nutshell, is the result of the treaty: less power for member states, more power for the institutions; less power for the House to resist measures harmful to Britain, more power for the institutions to pursue their interventionist agenda.
      The Conservative party is not anti-European. We want Europe to work for us and for every member state. We are in favour of co-operation. We are pro-European, but we are against shoddy negotiation. We are against damaging treaties. This treaty fails Britain. It will destroy British jobs. It falls short of what could and should have been achieved. It gives away so much for so little in return. We will oppose it.
      9.56 pm
      Mr. Doug Henderson: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Speaker: I am Madam Speaker, not Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I beg your pardon.
      The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said that the Conservative party was not anti-European. He and his colleagues must have confused me over the seven days that we have dealt with the various stages of the Bill. They will also confuse the country about what Parliament should be doing about an issue of importance to the nation.
      As was acknowledged by many of those who spoke in our debates, the issues before us are far more important than party political interests. They are crucial to the nation's interests. The Conservative party does the nation a disservice because of its divisions on Europe. Within the Conservative party there is clearly a core of opposition to Europe. Incidentally, I think that it is destroying the Conservative party, although I shed no tears about that. I am worried, however, that it threatens to destroy the integrity of our nation.
      Some of the opposition is principled. I recognise the contributions made by Opposition Members with long-standing views against many issues relating to the European Union, but a different core of Conservative opposition seems to be emerging, which is focused far more on the internal politics of the Conservative party and the possibility of progress within the party. That is extremely damaging.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Henderson: I am not giving way. There are only two minutes left.
      There is overwhelming support on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches for the EU and the provisions of the treaty—and I believe that there is some support on the Conservative Benches, which has been muted during these debates. Some Conservative Members have dissociated themselves publicly from the backward-looking old-fashioned anti-Europeanism of the Conservative Front Bench.
      784
      I believe that it is a good treaty. This is a good Bill that would have been unattainable under the Conservatives. It is strong on foreign policy, border controls, employment and the single market and strong against crime and fraud. They are major achievements and priorities of the British presidency. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 145.

      Division No. 133]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Allan, Richard

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ashton, Joe

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coleman, Iain

      Baker, Norman

      Colman, Tony

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Connarty, Michael

      Banks, Tony

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cooper, Yvette

      Barron, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      Battle, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cotter, Brian

      Beard, Nigel

      Cousins, Jim

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cox, Tom

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Crausby, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Berry, Roger

      Cummings, John

      Best, Harold

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Borrow, David

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brake, Tom

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Davidson, Ian

      Breed, Colin

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Browne, Desmond

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Burgon, Colin

      Doran, Frank

      Burnett, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Burstow, Paul

      Drew, David

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Byers, Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Cann, Jamie

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Caplin, Ivor

      Flint, Caroline

      Casale, Roger

      Flynn, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Follett, Barbara

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Chidgey, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Clapham, Michael

      Foulkes, George

      785

      Fyfe, Maria

      Kemp, Fraser

      Galloway, George

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Khabra, Piara S

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Kidney, David

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Gerrard, Neil

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Godman, Norman A

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Laxton, Bob

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Leslie, Christopher

      Grant, Bernie

      Levitt, Tom

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Linton, Martin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Livingstone, Ken

      Grogan, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gunnell, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Hain, Peter

      Lock, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McAllion, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hancock, Mike

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Harris, Dr Evan

      McDonnell, John

      Harvey, Nick

      McFall, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Healey, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Heppell, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      McWalter, Tony

      Hill, Keith

      McWilliam, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hoey, Kate

      Mandelson, Peter

      Home Robertson, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hope, Phil

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Maxton, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Meale, Alan

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Michael, Alun

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hutton, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Miller, Andrew

      Illsley, Eric

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Jamieson, David

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morley, Elliot

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Olner, Bill

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keetch, Paul

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      786

      Pearson, Ian

      Spellar, John

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Pickthall, Colin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Pike, Peter L

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pond, Chris

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pope, Greg

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pound, Stephen

      Stringer, Graham

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rapson, Syd

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rendel, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Rogers, Allan

      Truswell, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Ross Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roy, Frank

      Tyler, Paul

      Vaz, Keith

      Ruane, Chris

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Watts, David

      Salter, Martin

      Webb, Steve

      Sanders, Adrian

      White, Brian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Willis, Phil

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wilson, Brian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Winnick, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wise, Audrey

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Worthington, Tony

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Snape, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clappison, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Bercow, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Boswell, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Cran, James

      Brady, Graham

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Day, Stephen

      Burns, Simon

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Butterfill, John

      Duncan, Alan

      787

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Evans, Nigel

      Madel, Sir David

      Faber, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Fallon, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Flight, Howard

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Norman, Archie

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Paice, James

      Gibb, Nick

      Pickles, Eric

      Gill, Christopher

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Damian

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Greenway, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Ruffley, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hammond, Philip

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hayes, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Horam, John

      Spring, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Swayne, Desmond

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Syms, Robert

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Townend, John

      Key, Robert

      Trend, Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Walter, Robert

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Wardle, Charles

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lansley, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Leigh, Edward

      Wilkinson, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Willetts, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Wilshire, David

      Lidington, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Loughton, Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      MacKay, Andrew

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Mr. John Whittingdale.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  PETITION

    National Health Service (Bromsgrove)
    10.16 pm
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: This petition is from the residents of Bromsgrove, who are facing intolerable cuts in their local health service. We have two hospitals that serve the constituency, although neither is situated in the constituency. Both are facing cuts in their accident and emergency departments and one is facing cuts in elective surgery.
    I am particularly grateful to my local newspaper, the Bromsgrove Messenger, which collected 3,500 signatures on a petition that I can present to Parliament. It organized people to write in and protest about what is happening to our local health service.
    The petition, addressed to the House of Commons, says:
    The petition of residents of the Bromsgrove area declares that the services provided by the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch and the Kidderminster General Hospital are vital to the people of north Worcestershire.
    They wish to remind Parliament of the promises made on 1 May 1997, when the Labour Government pledged that they would seek to improve our National Health Service.
    They believe that the present proposals to close the accident and emergency departments at the Alexandra Hospital and Kidderminster General Hospital, along with all the elective surgery at the Kidderminster General Hospital, are utterly unacceptable to the people of Bromsgrove who rely on those services.
    They further believe that the funding and management of the health service is one for Ministers and the Government of the day and cannot be blamed on local administrators.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to use his authority over the Worcestershire Area Health Authority to stop the closure of these departments.
    It is signed by Dr. Elizabeth Shaw JP, Park Hall, Bromsgrove.
    To lie upon the Table.

    A3 (Hindhead Tunnel)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    10.18 pm
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on a matter of enormous concern to my constituents and to people throughout the south-east. The extent to which the road problem causes concern throughout the region is shown by the number of hon. Members present this evening—my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has taken a close interest, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson).
    I had not anticipated the degree to which the road problem is a priority for people who work in the House. Since I arrived this evening, I have spoken to a Senior Office Clerk in the Vote Office, the Principal Doorkeeper, a Deputy Principal Doorkeeper and three other Doorkeepers, all of whom have informed me that their journey to work is hampered by the nightmare at Hindhead. They have asked me in the strongest possible way to reinforce the sense of priority that they hope the Minister and her Government will give to the proposals.
    The case is essentially simple; the many arguments are technically compelling. I hope to demonstrate how the plans fit the criteria set out by the Minister's Department as a test for priority action. The criteria are integration, economy, safety, the environment and accessibility.
    The Minister should be clear that the issue evokes enormously strong feeling in my constituency. Week in, week out, I have heard of the frustration and alarm of local people, and of the danger, delay and pollution they face on the stretch of road. The concern is not new, but it is mounting. It reflects a unity of purpose across political and geographical divisions that something must be done, which has built up over decades. It is not good enough that the road improvement scheme should simply feature in the consultation document. People want action, not words. They need a firm plan for when work will begin.
    Over the years, there have been enormous improvements to the A3. It is an excellent road from London to Portsmouth and round to Southampton, but the difficulty lies on the only four-mile stretch of single carriageway at Hindhead in my constituency. Over more recent years, there have been proposals for improvements at Hindhead. In 1987, a red route was proposed, but the following year there was disappointment over it. That was followed by a proposal for a yellow route, and a modified yellow route. In June 1992, the approval of tunnel proposals was announced following consultation, and, since March 1993, that has been the preferred route. Since then, I regret to say that there has been relatively little progress.
    My constituents are obviously becoming progressively more alarmed and concerned as the volume of traffic builds, and since the rest of the road is so very much better. In recent months, I have been collecting signatures for a petition, with which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire has helped. The volume of signatures has meant that we have had to extend the period during which people are asked to complete
    790
    the forms. I hope that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), I shall then be able to place the petition in the Bag behind your Chair, Madam Speaker.
    The petition declares that unacceptably long delays are constantly suffered by A3 road users. Local towns and villages are adversely affected by the volume of traffic, which damages the environment and causes danger to residents. Businesses in the area and across the region suffer from costly and wasteful delays. The Hindhead commons provide exceptional landscape and national history, which should be protected for all to enjoy.
    I shall quote from a sample letter from Andrew Robb, one of my constituents:
    "Everyone is united on one point, namely the desperate need to relieve the existing bottleneck, which worsens every day, which gives rise to major risk of accident on the existing single carriageway and roads leading to and from it and which causes considerable atmospheric pollution. Please would you give the absolute highest priority to reaching a decision on this issue as quickly as possible. Further delays would be disastrous."
    I turn to the technical case. The A3 is a road of strategic regional importance, with links to Europe. It provides a key route from the coast at Portsmouth to London. It has already undergone exceptional and extensive improvement. Nigel Bourne of the CBI said in his submission to the Highways Agency, which the Minister has probably seen:
    "It is really quite illogical that the main road from London to Portsmouth should suffer from such ridiculous levels of congestion, particularly when the remainder of the road is generally built to a good standard."
    The bottleneck is all the more intolerable because it has caused substantial blight in the surrounding area. The major route between Portsmouth, the second busiest international passenger port in the country, and London, with its international airports and road links to the north, is severely disrupted.
    Mr. Syd Rapson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Portsmouth city council's interest is in economic development and that the strangulation of the A3 is causing concern in the council? Potential developers and visitors to the city are being dissuaded because of the bottleneck which, linked with the awful train service, does not do much for the city. That is the main strength of the council's argument, although it would agree with most of the points being raised by the right hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am well aware of the economic opportunities—and problems—facing Portsmouth. I hope that the millennium celebrations—in which the Millennium Commission has invested some £50 million—and the regeneration of the dock area will result in great opportunities not only for Portsmouth, but for the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) stopped me on his way in this evening to say how strongly his constituents feel about this matter. All the time that business is jammed at Hindhead, constituents face extremely difficult circumstances. I appreciate the contribution from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North and the city council's work in this regard.

    791
    As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the road is a regional gateway to Europe. Regeneration and regional prosperity require a sound road infrastructure. To quote from the CBI:
    "Continued consultation with our members reveals their increasing concern with the state of the roads in the South East, particularly in view of it being the gateway to Europe. There is no doubt that the future of wealth creation in the region is dependent on the infrastructure and schemes are needed now to bring roads up to the barest minimum requirement."
    The need is here and now. We must not hide behind strategies as excuses for delay. As the CBI said:
    "Discussion on an integrated transport strategy should not be allowed to be a further reason for delay. The roads schemes will be required in any event and are long overdue."
    My constituents—like those of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn)—will welcome any rail improvements, which may help to ease the situation for A3 users along other stretches of the road. I do not wish to ignore that.
    An integrated transport policy requires the road link between Portsmouth, Southampton, London and the airports to be of a suitable standard. At present, it is not. I welcome the fact that the Minister's consultation document recognises that an effective trunk road network is crucial to UK competitiveness. Congestion and uncertain journey times are adding to business costs. I entirely agree with businesses in my constituency—and those of other hon. Members—who are counting the costs of congestion. The Hindhead blockage is bad for business locally, regionally and in Europe. Time, fuel and money are wasted in the bottleneck.
    The chairman of the Headley Down housing association speculated that
    "the commercial costs of the delays over the years must be enormous."
    He points to the many individuals, including himself, who have suffered financial loss.
    That local assessment is in line with the trend analysed by Trafficmaster, who showed that, in the third quarter of 1997 alone, 38 million man hours were lost to congestion, costing UK businesses £1.8 billion in time, resources and lost appointments. Nowhere is that truer than at Hindhead.
    My third argument relates to road safety. In my constituency between January and September of last year, there were 37 collisions, with three deaths and a further 64 casualties. In the past five years, there have been 255 collisions. That is too many, and without urgent action, the numbers will grow. With the investment in Portsmouth, Southampton and throughout the region, I do not wish the stretch of my constituency to emerge as people's final resting ground on the stretch between London and Portsmouth.
    Of course, it is not only on the A3 that the danger is growing. We are witnessing a disastrous effect. Traffic is ingeniously, speedily and recklessly rat-running throughout the entire area. All the delightful villages of north-east Hampshire and south-west Surrey are being invaded by reckless drivers, desperately trying to beat the jam. Residents both old and young are put at risk, the quality of life is being damaged and the danger is mounting. On those grounds, they urgently ask the hon. Lady to look carefully into the situation.
    792
    In "What role for Trunk Roads in England?", the Government set out the objectives for the A3 improvement scheme, which are: to reduce congestion and delay to road users; to enhance road safety; and to provide additional capacity. I welcome those objectives, but the report does not do justice to the overwhelming environmental case for action on the A3. That road bisects a landscape of national and international significance.
    In Kyoto recently, the Secretary of State said that the Government were committed to environmental protection. This debate provides the Minister with the ideal opportunity to endorse a project that will have substantial environmental gains. The Hindhead commons, through which the A3 runs, are National Trust land. It has been designated a site of special scientific interest and, on a European dimension, it is a candidate special protection area.
    In its letter to the Department, the National Trust, echoing local views, writes:
    "We urge that the A3 Hindhead scheme be retained in the programme, and considered for early implementation. It is near Draft Orders stage of design; and is one of the few schemes that satisfies the majority of transport and environmental objectives".
    With encouragement like that from the National Trust, how can the hon. Lady possibly resist? The Hindhead commons are a national asset. The combination of high landscape, ecological and heritage value make a significant contribution to the country's environmental capital. The enhancement and protection of such assets carry a high priority in Government planning policy. The replacement of the existing surface road with a tunnel would achieve such objectives.
    I can also inform the hon. Lady of the comments from the Council for the Protection of Rural England:
    "The Devil's Punch Bowl is a landscape feature that is completely dominated by the present level of traffic congestion. Relieved of traffic it could once more be an incomparable place where the public could experience the quiet enjoyment of the rich Surrey countryside."
    Finally, the Countryside Commission says:
    "We have, since the proposal for a road scheme improvement on the A3 at Hindhead was submitted for consultation, consistently support the option for a tunnel development as the only acceptable proposal. We believe that this is the only scheme that has fully considered the impact of development upon the landscape, local character and wildlife of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty".
    However, the CPRE letter sums up what is happening, stating:
    "The whole area of minor rural roads around the junction is plagued at peak times by traffic seeking out rat runs."
    Dramatic topography, tranquillity, panoramic views and the diverse habitats all combine to give this area a nationally significant scenic quality an international wildlife value and make it a regionally important resource for recreation. As the National Trust rightly says, the only detracting feature is
    "the intrusion resulting from traffic on the A3, as it skirts the rim of the Punch Bowl, which is both visible and audible over a wide area."
    The tunnel solution would see the National Trust lands reunited, with the present road fully restored to heath land. Obviously, there are local reservations about the adverse impact of the scheme on areas such as Boundless copse and Tyndall's wood, but the significant benefits that

    793
    would arise from the provision of a tunnel, combined with the closure of the existing road, would be of national and international importance.
    I have spoken about the effect of rat runs on the environment. They also damage local accessibility—another of the criteria against which the hon. Lady's Department is judging the trunk road proposal.
    It should have become clear by now that one of the most severe problems facing my constituents is the increasing volume of traffic seeking to avoid the A3 and using roads that are unsuitable. In the Government document, the Minister says:
    "Accessibility is about making it easier to reach the places we need to get to."
    Growing congestion on the A3 at Hindhead clearly prevents that, and diminishes the concept of equity, the final criterion in the document, which says that we should be fair to every group of people, with all their differing needs.
    The current situation is not fair to commercial traffic, long-distance commuters, holiday makers or local residents; or, indeed, to those of us coming into work in the House. The National Trust said:
    "A tunnel would pose no constraints on accessibility."
    It is the obvious solution, and the only way in which to tackle the existing bottleneck.
    I appreciate the Minister's presence at this late hour. I hope that I have made clear to her the strength of feeling about the proposal. It is vital that it achieves priority and that, in the response to the trunk road review, the people of Hindhead and the region are told what the timetable is and what steps they can take next. They are affronted and outraged, and becoming increasingly angry.
    A young man of 15 from Rodborough school in Witley, Sebastian Coulthard, wrote to me. I hope that he will be able to look forward to the road being completed before much longer. He said:
    "My family and I suffer every day the consequences of the excesses of traffic in Haslemere and every time we pass by the Hindhead crossroads I feel very sad to see how blighted the area has become … I also feel sad at the extraordinary amount of accidents that have happened in the stretch and how it has become a cause of concern and irritation for those who live near it. I hope this letter helps you convince the Government of the misery that people have been experiencing in this area and decide to start building the tunnel NOW."
    I agree with Sebastian.
    10.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for the opportunity that she has afforded the House to discuss this topic, which is clearly of importance to hon. Members of all parties, and not exclusively to her constituency. She has highlighted that importance by pointing out the presence of the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I also thank her for her generosity in affording an opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) to intervene in the debate.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) here. He too feels extremely strongly about this, not only because many residents of Putney spend their holidays in the Isle of Wight and so, I hope, plague him on the matter.
    Ms Jackson: I hardly think that anyone would regard the representations of constituents as a plague, but I am none the less grateful to the right hon. Lady for pointing out my hon. Friend's presence.
    I congratulate the right hon. Lady on setting out her arguments so clearly and strongly, within the context of the importance of safety, the environment, economic sustainability and community issues.
    The A3 is a road of regional significance, linking the port and city of Portsmouth to London and, via the M25, to the rest of the country. It is paralleled in the transport corridor by the London-Portsmouth railway, which also provides a significant link between the communities of Portsmouth, east Hampshire, west Surrey and London.
    As well as providing access to Portsmouth, the A3 acts as a commuter route, carrying a large traffic flow of about 80,000 vehicles a day to the north of Guildford. I understand that some of the commuter problems were made clear to the right hon. Lady by some of the Doorkeepers who work in the Palace.
    The flows decrease to the south of Guildford, with traffic flows around Hindhead in the order of 27,000 vehicles a day. As it is a route to the ports, there is not much seasonal variation in its use. The proportion of heavy goods vehicles on the A3 is near the national average of 10 per cent. Congestion occurs around Guildford, and it is severe at peak periods on the single carriageway through Hindhead.
    The built and natural environment of Hindhead provides challenging constraints in finding a solution to its problems. I have in mind the Devil's Punch Bowl, to which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey referred and which is a dramatic landscape feature to the north of Hindhead and part of the Hindhead Commons heathland site of special scientific interest. The alignment and the number of direct accesses on to the trunk road at Hindhead contribute to the poor safety record on that stretch of road.
    I understand the desire of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey for early decisions on the A3 Hindhead improvement scheme, which has already been through a number of reviews. As she knows, the Government have embarked on a fundamental review of transport policy. Our objectives, as a Government, are a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. As the right hon. Lady pointed out, transport is a vital part of all those aims.
    Good communications are central to the economy and our quality of life. However, the backdrop to the fundamental review is a candid recognition that we need a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last autumn show traffic increasing by nearly 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies continue, congestion will get worse, the impact on the environment will be even more severe, and those who have no access to private transport will find it even more difficult to get around.

    795
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently returned from the successful Kyoto summit—the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey also mentioned it—with a legally binding target for the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by 8 per cent. The United Kingdom's contribution towards this target, to be determined in spring and summer of 1998, is likely to be above the average. To meet the target, measures will need to be taken in all sectors of the economy.
    The Government have signalled their intention to tackle the growth of emissions from the transport sector through policies such as the integrated transport strategy. A number of measures to reduce CO2 emissions from transport, in addition to the fuel duty strategy, are, therefore, being considered as part of the integrated transport policy review.
    We must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution each mode can make; ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair; and takes into account, from the outset, considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy. Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One of the encouraging aspects of such an ambitious task is the degree of consensus that we do need to change.
    We cannot achieve that change in isolation and we want actively to engage those involved in transport. It is a feature of the policy development work now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. That is the context for the roads review, which is examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
    Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and thirdly, to provide new infrastructure. To make best use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms and we must make the best use of that investment. Technologies old and new can help to make better use of our roads network. A number of measures can also bring safety benefits and we will need to ensure that those are given proper priority. We need, however, to be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
    We must also consider seriously other harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic. It encompasses reducing the need to travel by, for example, land use planning, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged and, inevitably, controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms. Many local authorities are seeking through integrated transport packages to combine demand management and other measures so that mobility is maintained while its adverse consequences are reduced. In the local transport settlement recently announced by my right hon. Friend
    796
    the Minister for Transport, I was pleased that the Government were able to continue to support Surrey county council's transport package for Guildford, which will help to alleviate congestion and provide increased support for its safe routes to school transport package.
    The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a very difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we will not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
    There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. Volume 2 of our roads review consultation document, "What Role for Trunk Roads", sets out region by region the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme inherited from our predecessors. The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is prima face evidence that there is a transport problem. We sought from our regional consultations a view on whether those are the most important problems, or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from this part of the review: a firm, short-term investment programme; and a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems, out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
    The Government office for the south-east held three day-long seminars last autumn as part of our consultation process on integrated transport. At an integrated transport policy seminar in Woking last September, which was attended by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads, delegates agreed that more work was needed to encourage the transfer of freight movements from road to rail, particularly on the strategic transport corridors serving the ports.
    Seminars in Ashford and Reading last October looked at transport corridors in the Government office for the south-east region, including the A3 transport corridor between the M25 and the Hampshire ports. Many of the right hon. Lady's points about the importance of the A3 Hindhead improvement scheme for safety, the environment and support of the economy were also made at the seminar. Strong representations were made and there was a clear consensus on the importance, regionally, of high-quality, reliable routes, both road and rail, to the south-east ports, including Portsmouth.
    The Hindhead problem was highlighted as requiring particularly urgent attention. Many delegates were in favour of the 1996 road programme scheme going ahead as quickly as possible to bring the route up to a consistent standard and to alleviate the environmental and traffic problems. That view was also strongly reflected in the written contributions that we received about the A3 at Hindhead. Others favoured a study that would first establish what role there was for rail to assist in managing demand, both at Hindhead and more generally on the A3, and whether there were alternative, smaller scale improvements that could address the problems. We will take all those views into account in deciding how best to proceed.

    797
    Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society, is a huge challenge. Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we want to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future
    798
    investment in the road network, whether by measures to make better use of the existing network, or by providing new infrastructure, that is fair and seen to be fair—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Sewers
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the Building Regulations to comply with section 104 of the Water Industries Act 1991 to ensure that all sewers are built by developers to an adoptable standard. [22841]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no plans to amend the Building Regulations to require that all sewers are built to a standard necessary for them to be adopted under an agreement made under section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991. However, in 1986, the Department of the Environment in conjunction with the Welsh Office carried out a review of water and sewerage law and considered the automatic adoption of all new sewers undertakers. It was concluded that this could not be implemented as it would have involved vesting existing private sewers with the water authorities of the time and would have placed an undue financial burden on them and hence their customers.

  London Underground
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the last five years(a) the number of penalty fares issued by London Underground Ltd. and (b) the income generated by penalty fares issued by London Underground Ltd. [23217]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The operation of the Penalty Fares Scheme is a matter for London Underground. The table details the information provided by London Underground for the completed years since the scheme was launched on 4 April 1994.

  Year

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of penalty fares issued

  173,899

  145,410

  203,650

  Income from penalty fares

  £1.1 million

  £1 million

  £1.5 million

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many appeals against penalty fares issued by London Underground Ltd. were made in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these were successful in each of those years. [23218]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The operation of the Penalty Fares Scheme is a matter for London Underground. The table details the information provided by London Underground for the completed years since the scheme was launched on 4 April 1994.
  368

  Year

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Appeals processed1

  26,318

  21,771

  26,117

  Percentage of appeals that were successful

  25 per cent.

  26 per cent.

  35 per cent.

  1 Of the appeals processed approximately 10–15 per cent. are further correspondence or re-appeals.

  Duty Free Sales
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect of the abolition of duty free on the cost of air travel and ferry travel. [23200]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently in the process of examining the possible effects of abolition of duty free sales, including the implications for air travel and ferry travel.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of accidents involving staff and contractors working on the West Coast Main Line for each of the last five years. [23205]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I regret that this information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The accident reporting regime changed in 1996 when the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 came into effect. In addition, accidents are recorded not by train route but by which company reported the accident. In the majority of cases, this is Railtrack, as infrastructure controller, even where Railtrack staff were not involved in the accident. Accidents are recorded against relevant Railtrack zones. The West Coast Main Line covers several such zones and some of the boundaries have changed since the creation of Railtrack in April 1994.

  Gatwick Airport
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the recommendations made by the Gatwick Airport close parallel runway study group; [23202]

  (2) what work his Department is currently undertaking in relation to the possibility of a close parallel runway at Gatwick Airport. [23201]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is not undertaking any work in relation to the possibility of developing a close parallel runway at Gatwick Airport. The work which the previous administration asked BAA to undertake into this concept following publication of the report on Runway Capacity to Serve the South East (RUCATSE) is not yet complete. We have asked BAA to put the work on hold so that we can consider how to take this issue forward in the light of the integrated transport White Paper, which we expect to publish in the Spring.

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by train operating company the punctuality and reliability figures compiled by OPRAF for each of the last 12 months. [23204]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is included in the quarterly bulletins of franchise operators' performance issued by the Franchising Director, the most recent of which was published on 15 January. The bulletins are in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities are expected to be brought into liability for VAT by exceeding the 5 per cent. de minimis partial exemption limit; and how he intends that the additional cost to such authorities will be funded. [22992]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provisional Local Government Revenue Finance Settlement for 1998–99 takes into account local authorities' VAT liability for their statutory responsibilities. The previous Government introduced a change in VAT partial exemption rules which affected VAT liability on local authorities' exempt business activities. This came into effect on 1 April 1997, in order to ensure that local authorities accurately account for VAT and are treated on a similar basis to the private sector. Local authorities calculate the extent to which they have exceeded the 5 per cent. limit on an annual basis, and must make an adjustment in the next VAT return after the year end. The effects of the change in VAT partial exemption rules will not therefore be known until 1998–99.

  We expect councils to find the budget for any effects of this change from within their provision for 1998–99.

  Lost Property (Rail Stations)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines exist for the provision of a lost property service in railway stations. [23195]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The adoption of a voluntary code of practice aimed at improving the level of service to those customers who lose property in the course of a rail journey is currently being considered by the train operating companies who lease the majority of stations, and by Railtrack who manage the 14 major stations on the network. It is expected that it will come into operation in the spring.

  Staying Put Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of grant support is envisaged for the Staying Put scheme; and if he will make a statement. [23100]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Government funding for home improvement agencies, also known as "Staying Put" or "Care and Repair" schemes, has been increased by £¾ million (17 per cent.) to £5.214 million for 1998–99.370
  Bids for funding for individual agencies are currently being assessed and we expect to announce the outcome next month.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to review the work of Leasehold Valuation Tribunals. [23328]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are monitoring closely the work of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals in relation to their new jurisdiction for determining disputes over service charges and applications for the appointment of a manager which commenced on 1 September. We will consider carefully whether any changes in procedure are needed in the light of experience.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government expect to bring forward a consultation paper on options for leasehold reform. [23663]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are currently considering the scope and practicability of possible new measures to assist leaseholders. We expect to make an announcement about our proposals and invite comments from interested parties in the Spring.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the withholding of information from the public register of applications for consent to release genetically modified organisms on the grounds of prevention of damage to the environment. [22881]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: Under the current legislation, information may be withheld from the public register on the grounds of prevention of damage to the environment. To date, no information has been withheld from the public register on these grounds. We would consider any requests to withhold information on this basis extremely carefully, with safety to the environment as the primary concern.

  China
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to visit China. [23561]

  Mr. Prescott
  I hope to visit China in the early part of the summer.

  Project Funding (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the projects within the Northumberland County Council area that have received European Regional Development Funding in the last three years. [24019]

  Angela Eagle
  Projects within the Northumberland County Council's area have to date received £26,377,479 from the Regional Development Fund (EDRF) in the last three years. A total of 170 projects have been supported
  371
  under the following European Structural Funds Programmes: North East of England Objective 2, Northern Uplands Objective 5b, PESCA Community Initiative and RECHAR II Community Initiative. Regional projects approved under the aforementioned programmes have also provided assistance in the Northumberland area.

  The Northumberland area has also benefited from support from the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Agricultural Guidance Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

  Tables on projects in Northumberland that have received support from the EDRF have been placed in the Library.

  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current value of the local authority occupational pension funds. [23791]

  Ms Armstrong
  The most recent date for which we hold information relating to local authority pension funds in England and Wales is 30 June 1997, when the market value totalled £61.5 billion.

  Coach Travel (Disabled People)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had, and with whom, to seek to improve travelling conditions in motor coaches for disabled people. [23800]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has held extensive informal discussions, both with their statutory advisers on disability, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) and with representatives of both manufacturing and operating industries. On the basis of these preliminary discussions, we published on 19 December, for widespread public consultation, our proposals for making both buses and coaches accessible to disabled people in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. Twelve thousand copies of the consultation document have been issued to disability organisations and other consumer groups as well as to all bus and coach operators and manufacturers. The consultation document has been placed in the House Library.

  Water Supplies (Stevenage)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will assess the availability of water supplies for the planned new households when ruling on plans to expand Stevenage. [23729]

  Angela Eagle
  No. It is for the water companies concerned to quantify and provide the water supplies required to support new housing developments. This is a normal part of the planning process.

  CFCs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to ban all sales of CFCs. [23410]
  372
  Angela Eagle
  My Department, in collaboration with the Department of Trade and Industry, is currently undertaking a study to look at the environmental and economic costs and benefits of tighter controls on ozone depleting substances, including a possible ban on the sale of CFCs, which may be included in proposals which the European Commission are expected to bring forward to amend EC Regulation 3093/94 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. We will consider the issue fully when the study is completed and in the light of discussion with European colleagues of whatever proposals the Commission bring forward.

  Wild-caught Birds
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent figures he has obtained in respect of the number of wild-caught birds imported into the United Kingdom; and what percentage of wild-caught birds imported into the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available are estimated to have been dead on arrival. [22969]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department maintains records of trade only in the species listed in the Annexes to Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97, which govern the import into EU Member States. At present, these records do not include data on the number of birds that were dead on arrival but we intend to gather mortality statistics when systems can be put in place. From the data returned so far, some 4,598 wild-caught birds were imported in 1997.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on EU Directive 96/29 in respect of the recycling of radioactive waste in consumer goods. [23618]

  Angela Eagle
  Directive 96/29/Euratom lays down revised European Union basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. It must be implemented into UK legislation by May 2000.

  The Directive effectively sets levels of radioactivity above which radioactive materials must be the subject of regulatory control. The Directive, however, gives Member States discretion in setting levels for the release from regulatory control of materials for disposal, recycling and re-use.

  The Government are giving careful consideration to this matter and their proposals will be the subject of full public consultation planned for later this year.

  A27 Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent to date in total on the proposals to build the new A27 Polegate bypass, broken down into(a) land acquisition, (b) public consultation, (c) design costs, (d) compensation payments to tenderers and (e) others. [23409]
  373
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 January 1998:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on how much has been spent to date in total on the proposals to build the A27 Polegate Bypass broken down into (a) land acquisition, (b) public consultation, (c) design costs, (d) compensation payments to tenderers and (e) others.
  The overall spend so far is approximately £3.7m (including VAT). Of that, £1.4m has been spent on land acquisition, including land blighted by the scheme, but not necessarily required for it. Some of the costs would be recovered when any surplus land is sold.
  Design costs, which include the development of preliminary design through public consultation to detailed design, are around £1m; it is not possible to break this down further except at disproportionate cost.
  No compensation payments to tenderers (i.e for the DBFO project) have been made to date.
  We have also spent £1m on advance payments to statutory undertakers (eg to move overhead electric power lines), some of which may be recoverable if the scheme does not go ahead, and £250,000 on ground investigation surveys. The only other item of major expenditure has been the preparation of tender documents for the Weald and Downland DBFO project of which this scheme was part, we estimate that the portion of costs attributable to this scheme are in the order of £50,000.

  National Conditions of Carriage
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review(a) the National Conditions of Carriage in general and (b) clause 45 of the conditions. [23393]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the request of the Rail Regulator, the Association of Train Operating Companies is currently conducting a review of the National Conditions of Carriage and consulting the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the Office of the Rail Regulator, the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee and the train operating companies.

  River Tyne Debris Clearance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the contributions in the last five years from the Environment Agency and its predecessors to the "Eager Beaver" River Tyne Debris Clearance vessel; and what are his reasons for discontinuing this contribution in the next financial year. [23647]

  Angela Eagle
  The contributions made to the "Eager Beaver" River Tyne Debris Clearance vessel in the past five years by the Environment Agency from 1996–97 and the National Rivers Authority before it, are as follows:

  1993–94: £4,000

  1994–95: £4,000

  1995–96: £2,000

  1996–97: £2,000

  1997–98: £2,000

  The Environment Agency is an executive non-Departmental public body, free to manage its day to day business within the framework provided by the
  374
  Government. Any decision about its future funding contributions to the "Eager Beaver" is therefore a matter for the Agency.

  Cavity Walls
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the latest results of his Department's research into rain penetration in cavity walls. [24238]

  Angela Eagle
  On behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the Building Research Establishment has undertaken research into water penetration in cavity walls filled with insulation.

  As part of my Department's ongoing programme of research into rain penetration in cavity walls, I have, in consultation with my hon. Friends the Minister for London and Construction and the Minister for Local Government and Housing, asked for precautionary checks to be carried out on the condition of galvanised steel wire wall ties in a representative sample of homes with cavity walls filled with insulation. This follows the preliminary results of research which indicate that there is a possibility that the life expectancy of green coloured galvanised steel wire wall ties might be shortened when used in conjunction with Urea Formaldehyde foam cavity fill. The tests were undertaken on dwarf walls without the protective features found in real houses. I wish, therefore, to establish whether the effects indicated in the BRE research occur in real houses.

  I want to stress that there is no conclusive evidence of a safety risk involving galvanised steel wire wall ties in cavity wall insulation. But it would be wrong if, as a result of the preliminary findings, we did not investigate quickly and thoroughly whether or not the possible problems with green coloured galvanised steel wire wall ties in some cavity fills were occurring in people's homes. This is a prudent, precautionary measure and I have asked that further research be carried out as soon as possible.

  The expert, independent, advice I have received from the BRE is that, while it believes that its initial findings indicate the need for a wider study, it is strongly of the view that it would be premature to place any firm interpretation on its findings until it can be established whether they are representative of conditions in the UK housing stock.

  While the number of homes containing galvanised wire wall ties with a green film, in cavity wall insulation, is a small portion of the housing stock, it is prudent to carry out these precautionary checks which will be extended to examine other forms of galvanised wire wall ties in cavity fill.

  BRE' s test results show:
  Accelerated corrosion has occurred to galvanised steel wire wall ties which have been coated with a green identification film when embedded in moist urea formaldehyde foam cavity insulation.
  Whilst there was visual evidence of corrosion of "grey" (without the green film) galvanised steel wire wall ties embedded in moist cavity fill insulation, the measurement of loss of zinc was too small to be significant.

  375
  No significant corrosion was found in either form of galvanised steel wire wall tie embedded in moist blown mineral wood or mineral wool batt cavity insulation.
  There was some visual evidence of corrosion on both types of galvanised steel wire ties at the gap which occurs between the masonry and all three types of wet insulation.
  Stainless steel wire wall ties showed no signs of corrosion irrespective of the cavity fill material and exposure.

  The results were obtained from experimental walls after 12 and 18 months subject to regimes of accelerated exposure. Copies of BRE's Research report have been placed in the House Library.

  Ferry Crews
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 111, on ferry crews, if he will set out the criteria which the Marine Safety Agency uses in assessing the ability of passenger ferry crew members to communicate in English. [23725]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. Bradley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Alasdair Morgan, dated 19 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about the criteria used by the MSA in assessing the abilities of passenger ferry crew members to communicate in English.
  MSA inspectors, when witnessing emergency drills on passenger ferries, expect crew members to be able to communicate clearly to passengers in English the location of the following (which are specifically referred to in the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards of Safety Communications) Regulations 1997):

  muster stations;

  life-saving devices;

  evacuation routes;

  safety instructions;

  and to be able to give a clear explanation to passengers of other matters such as:

  the nature of the emergency;

  the need to put on warm clothing;

  instruction to board a life boat or life raft.

  The inspectors may apply these criteria at any other time if they feel that crew members' English language skills need to be assessed.

  Charity Collections (Stations)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will advise the managements of all railway and underground stations not to rely on charity registration as an indication of respectability. [22886]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Applications for charity collections on railway and underground stations are considered by the operators on an individual basis and do not solely rely on the fact that an organisation is registered with the Charity Commission.
  376
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will advise the management of railway and underground stations to require a recommendation from an independent source before permitting charity collections on station land and premises. [22884]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Permission for charity collections on railway and underground stations is a matter for the individual operator, in this case Railtrack, the train operating company or London Underground Ltd. Charities are advised to seek permission from them in advance to enable applications to be considered and collection times to be allocated.

  Timber
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on the purchasing for use by Government departments and agencies of(a) Brazilian mahogany and (b) other endangered timber; how the policy is implemented and monitored; in what form the results of that monitoring are published; and if he will make a statement. [23847]

  Angela Eagle
  Decisions on the procurement of goods and services, including timber or related products, are the responsibility of individual Departments. Departments must have regard to the need to secure best value for the taxpayers' money, to EU and other international rules on procurement and to their strategies for environmentally friendly housekeeping. In pursuing these aims, Departments can be expected to seek timber from sustainable sources where practicable. My Department'sGreen Guide for Buyers Part 1: Policy and Practice, which I have commended to Green Ministers in other Departments, requires minimum use of virgin materials, and the Department seeks as far as possible to purchase wood only from sources verified as sustainable. Costa Rica and Bolivia have listed their populations of Brazilian Mahogany in Appendix III of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and Brazil has consulted on a proposal to do the same. The importation of this species into the EU requires an export permit or a certificate from the country of origin. Importers are required to complete a notification in order to help monitoring of the levels of trade.

  Food Safety
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the funding for implementation of the Pennington Report, announced on 19 August 1997, will count against local authority spending limits. [22948]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: In line with the announcement made on 19 August 1997 by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, £3.75 million of extra funding has been provided to English local authorities to contribute towards the additional costs of inspecting food premises more frequently. This will assist in implementing the Government's response to the Pennington report. As a rule, expenditure for which

  377
  provision is made within an authority's Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) is included in an authority's budget requirement for capping purposes. Authorities are able to increase their budgets by at least the increase in their SSA, except where it would take their budget more than 12.5 per cent. above SSA or where their budget is already more than 12.5 per cent. above SSA.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council how many questions have been tabled since 1 May for answer on the following day by(a) Labour hon. Members and (b) hon. Members from other parties; and how many in each case were subsequently answered the following day. [23407]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The number of such Questions tabled by Labour hon. Members was 766, of which the POLIS database records 690 as having been answered on the day on which they appeared on the Order Paper and the number tabled by hon. Members of other parties was 10, of which the POLIS database records 2 as having been answered on the day on which they appeared on the Order Paper. These figures are from 1 May 1997 to 15 January 1998 (inclusive).

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs Tsar
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council when the decision was taken to employ an assistant Drugs Tsar; and how the job was advertised. [23391]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The decision to appoint Mike Trace as the Deputy UK Anti-Drugs Coordinator was taken in the light of the Ministerial interviews of the short-listed candidates, which I chaired and it was ratified by the Prime Minister before appointment in October 1997.

  The Deputy Coordinator acts in support of the full range of the Coordinator's responsibilities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Abdul Oudigo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish all the correspondence between his Department, the Metropolitan Police, the Nigerian Police and Interpol concerning Abdul Oudigo in 1995 and 1996; [23026]

  (2) if he will publish the contents of the Interpol report on Abdul Oudigo that was received by his Department in
  1996. [23027]

  Mr. Michael
  Interpol London has no record of Mr. Oudigo, either on paper or on any of its databases. Nor is there any record on the Police National Computer or at the Interpol Headquarters in Lyon.
  378
  If my hon. Friend is able to provide this Department with further information concerning his Question, for example Mr. Oudigo's date of birth, I will be happy to make further inquiries.

  Mr. Peter San Pedro
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time CS spray was used on Peter San Pedro of London; at what time Mr. San Pedro was released; at what time Mr. San Pedro died in a road accident; and if he will make a statement. [23107]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand from Kent County Constabulary that an officer sprayed Mr. San Pedro with CS during an incident which began at 11.33 am on 3 April 1997; that he was released from custody at 12.30 pm that day; and that at 6.23 pm an emergency call was received to say that he had been struck by a lorry. The incident has been investigated by the Police Complaints Authority and an inquest took place on 4 and 5 December. The cause of death was recorded as multiple injuries and the jury returned an open verdict. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently considering matters arising out of the incident.

  Flying Squad
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the police installed road blocks around the headquarters of the Flying Squad in Walthamstow during the weekend of 20 and 21 December. [23043]

  Mr. Michael
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. However, he tells me that no road blocks were installed around the regional Flying Squad office at Rigg Approach, Walthamstow, during the weekend of the 20 and 21 December. On that date, the office was searched by officers from the Metropolitan Police's Complaints Investigation Bureau following the arrest of former officers.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs have been(a) seized and (b) destroyed under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to date. [23018]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the numbers of dogs which have been seized by the police and local authorities under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not collected centrally.

  Information on the number of dogs destroyed under the dangerous dogs legislation is not collected in the form requested.

  In the period 1992–1996, a total of 977 people were convicted either of offences under section 1 of the 1991 Act or of aggravated offences under section 3. In each of these cases, the court would have had no option but to order the destruction of the dog concerned. This figure, therefore, is likely to be close to the actual number of dogs put down under the Act over that period.

  Animal Breeding Licences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what licences for animal breeding are currently held by Hillgrove Farm, Witney, Oxfordshire; when the provision of these licences was last reviewed; and what assessment he has made of the justification for their issue. [22863]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Hillgrove Farm is designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as a breeder and supplier of animals for use in scientific procedures. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 does not require that Certificates of Designation be renewed or formally reviewed. However, inspectors visit all establishments and will, where necessary, recommend the amendment of Certificates.

  Hillgrove Farm was inspected three times in 1997. The purpose of these inspections was to assess compliance with the conditions set out on the Certificate of Designation.

  I am satisfied that the establishment is operating within the terms and conditions of the 1986 Act and of its Certificate of Designation. There are no grounds, therefore, to revoke the Certificate.

  Jonathan Aitken
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates officers from the Metropolitan Police travelled to Paris to interview staff at the Ritz in connection with the alleged perjury of Mr. Jonathan Aitken. [23112]

  Mr. Michael
  This investigation is an operational matter for the Commissioner. However, he tells me that two officers from the Metropolitan Police travelled to Paris on 12 January 1998 in connection with this investigation.

  Table 1: Number of offenders convicted of offences of supply, importation1 and production of a Class A controlled drug by result, 1993–96

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody

  Offence

  Year

  Cautioned

  Total sentenced

  Non-custodial sentences

  Determinate sentences

  Life sentences

  Total sentenced and cautioned

  Supply of a Class A controlled drug

  1993

  91

  740

  267

  473

  —

  831

  1994

  84

  796

  270

  529

  —

  880

  1995

  70

  952

  251

  701

  —

  1,022

  1996

  73

  1,306

  309

  995

  —

  1,379

  Importation1

  1993

  6

  1,156

  381

  777

  —

  1,162

  1994

  5

  1,179

  840

  836

  —

  1,184

  1995

  7

  1,025

  288

  736

  —

  1,032

  1996

  7

  1,129

  260

  869

  —

  1,136

  Production of Class A controlled drug

  1993

  25

  34

  25

  9

  —

  59

  1994

  48

  44

  34

  10

  —

  92

  1995

  58

  59

  38

  22

  —

  117

  1996

  15

  57

  43

  15

  —

  72

  1 Importation of any controlled drug—cannot identify by class type.

  380
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to conclude his investigation into the alleged perjury of Jonathan Aitken. [21606]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner informs me that inquiries are continuing. These inquiries have been protracted due to the legal necessity to seek evidence from foreign jurisdictions. The investigation is being pursued as expeditiously as possible and will be concluded as soon as practicable. This investigation is an operational matter for the Commissioner.

  Drugs Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average determinate sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution received by offenders convicted of the supply, importation or production of Class A controlled drugs in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; [23123]

  (2) how many offenders convicted of offences related to the supply, importation or production of Class A controlled drugs received (a) a life sentence, (b) a determinate sentence of imprisonment and (c) a non-custodial sentence in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [23124]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: The offences referred to cover a wide range of circumstances and seriousness. Some cases may attract a caution if the offender has admitted guilt and the police decide that the offence is at the lower end of seriousness. On conviction, the maximum sentence available to the court for these offences is life imprisonment.

  Table 1 shows the respective number of offenders cautioned, given a non-custodial sentence and given a custodial sentence since 1993. Table 2 shows the average sentence lengths given to those given a custodial sentence. Prior to 1993, information held centrally for offences of supply and production does not identify controlled drugs by type or class.
  381

  Table 2: Average sentence lengths1 given for the offences of supply, importation2 or production of a Class A controlled drug by type of custodial sentence and court, 1993–1996

  England and Wales

  Average sentence length1 (months)

  Type of court/type of sentence/year

  Supply of a Class A controlled drug

  Importation2

  Production of a Class A controlled drug

  Magistrates' courts Young Offender Institution

  1993

  2.3

  2.3

  —

  1994

  3.3

  3.4

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  4.0

  6.0

  3.0

  Unsuspended sentence of imprisonment

  1993

  3.9

  3.7

  —

  1994

  3.0

  3.1

  —

  1995

  3.1

  2.7

  3.5

  1996

  2.9

  3.2

  —

  Crown Court Young Offender Institution

  1993

  20.1

  29.2

  —

  1994

  27.5

  41.1

  —

  1995

  24.8

  38.5

  —

  1996

  27.6

  40.0

  —

  Unsuspended sentence of imprisonment

  1993

  40.1

  54.1

  24.3

  1994

  41.3

  52.4

  31.8

  1995

  41.3

  61.7

  39.1

  1996

  41.5

  65.8

  42.2

  All courts Young Offender Institution

  1993

  19.5

  28.4

  —

  1994

  25.4

  38.9

  —

  1995

  24.8

  38.5

  —

  1996

  26.6

  38.6

  3.0

  Unsuspended sentence of imprisonment

  1993

  39.3

  53.2

  24.3

  1994

  41.1

  51.5

  31.8

  1995

  40.3

  60.0

  35.9

  1996

  41.0

  64.8

  42.2

  1 Excludes Life sentences.

  2 Importation of any controlled drug—cannot identify by class type.

  Witness Protection Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sought relocation in 1997 under the witness protection scheme; and how many were successfully rehoused, by borough. [23960]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no national scheme for the protection of witnesses in this country and information relating to those on police witness protection schemes is not collected centrally. Whether to offer protection in any particular case and the form that protection should take, including whether the person should be relocated, is a decision for the police force concerned.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of, and how many, asylum seekers were(a) granted asylum and (b) given exceptional leave to remain for each year from 1985 to 1997 inclusive. [23489]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During 1997, a total of 36,045 initial decisions, excluding dependants, were made on asylum applications. Of these, 3,985 (11 per cent.) were 382
  to recognise the applicant as a refugee and grant asylum, 3,115 (9 per cent.) were to refuse asylum but grant exceptional leave to enter (or remain) and 28,945 (80 per cent.) were to refuse both asylum and exceptional leave.

  Equivalent information for the years 1986 to 1996 is given in table 1.2 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1996" (issue 15/97). Table 1.2 of issue 9/96 of this publication provides similar data for 1985. Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) applications for asylum awaiting an initial decision and (b) appeals by asylum seekers against refusal to grant leave to stay were outstanding on 1 January. [23540]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the number of outstanding cases relates to the position at the end of the month rather than the beginning.

  As at 31 December 1997, there were 51,795 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, awaiting an initial decision. As at the same date, there were 25,555 asylum related appeals awaiting determination.

  The number of applications awaiting an initial decision has fallen by 5,600 (from 57,405) since the end of 1996. The total number of asylum related appeals outstanding has arisen over the same period by 3,215. However, over the last 5 months, this figure has shown a slight but consistent fall.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits were carried out last year by his Department's inspectors to establishments authorised to undertake animal procedures; and how many of these were unannounced. [22957]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Figures for 1997 have not yet been finalised. I will write to the hon. Member when they are available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure animals held in captivity for use in experiments are allowed to follow normal behavioural patterns so far as possible; and on how many occasions in 1996 his Department's inspectors have required changes to be made to conditions of captivity. [22952]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The environmental conditions required for animals used in scientific procedures are set out in the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals used in Scientific Procedures and reflected in the conditions set out in the establishment's Certificate of Designation. As far as possible, account is taken of species specific behaviour patterns and needs.

  Central records are not kept of how many times inspectors have required changes to be made at designated establishments to meet the conditions set out in the Certificate of Designation.
  383
  The Inspectorate has completed audits of all establishments designated under section 6 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and found high levels of compliance. Instances of non-compliance are being addressed.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what opportunities exist for pooling of data and other information obtained from animal experimentation between the United Kingdom and other countries; and what steps he is taking to encourage this. [22954]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no powers under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to require scientists to share data obtained from animal experimentation. Scientists are, however, expected by the Home Office to publish the results of their research.

  Under certain circumstances, where animal test data are submitted to regulatory authorities, there may be statutory obligations to share this data with third parties. The Home Office has encouraged this, as such sharing may reduce the number or scope of regulatory tests involving the use of animals.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the percentage of animal procedures carried out in 1996 which replicated procedures already undertaken previously(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere. [22955]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not available.

  On occasion, replication or duplication of procedures may be essential to establish the reliability of previous data and findings. Unless there are valid reasons for replicating work already undertaken, the Inspectorate will not recommend that a licence be granted.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been initiated in each year since 1987 for offences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and what was the outcome in each completed case. [22960]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Two prosecutions have been initiated since 1987. In 1991, an individual was convicted of breeding and supplying animals for use in scientific procedures while not being designated under section 7 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. In the other instance, charges were brought in 1997. This case is still before the courts.

  Prosecutions for cruelty in designated establishments have also been pursued under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reconcile respect for commercial confidentiality with his stated policy to seek to reduce the numbers of procedures carried out. [22956]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We assume the question relates to scientific procedures involving animals.

  We have already announced our intention to investigate the possibility of a European database on alternative methods and to make applicants for project licences declare what consideration they have given to alternatives
  384
  which reduce the number of animals used or replace them entirely (as well as refining procedures to minimise suffering).

  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate will continue to assess licence applications to ensure that alternatives are used wherever possible. I do not accept that there is a conflict between commercial confidentiality and efforts to minimise the number of animals used in scientific procedures.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes will be required to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to comply with the terms of the Government's White Paper on Freedom of Information. [22958]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is one of a number of Acts which contain statutory bars to the disclosure of information. Section 24 of the Act prevents the disclosure of information given in confidence. The Government have announced that they will be reviewing such statutory bars to decide whether they should remain or should be amended to bring them into line with the "substantial harm" and "public interest" tests proposed in the White Paper on Freedom of Information: "Your Right to Know" (Cm 3818). No decisions have yet been made concerning individual Acts.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to increase substantially the penalties available for failure to adhere to the conditions laid down as part of project licences under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [22959]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available penalties are set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. These include variation or revocation of licences (section 11); suspension of licences (section 13); and, upon conviction under section 22 of the Act, imprisonment or a fine. The maximum term of imprisonment is two years on conviction on indictment or six months on summary conviction. Variation of a licence may include changes to the authorities granted (such as removing authority to carry out certain protocols) or the addition of special conditions. We have no plans to change these provisions of the Act.

  In addition to these penalties, administrative measures can be taken such as admonition, or a requirement that licensees attend a training course. The latter can be formalised by the variation of the licence by the addition of a special condition.

  All infringements of the Act are reported to the Animal Procedures Committee which reviews the level of penalties imposed and advises on whether these were appropriate. It remains Home Office policy to impose penalties primarily to prevent recurrence of the infringement of the Act.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals bred or otherwise obtained for use in animal experimentation in 1996 were subsequently killed without being so used; and what this was as a percentage of animals used. [22951]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Animals which are bred in designated establishments for use in scientific procedures under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  385
  Act 1986 but which are not so used can be killed by Schedule 1 or other approved methods without licence authority under the Act.

  Types of animal which are not listed in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act can be bred within non-designated establishments. Surplus animals can be humanely killed in such establishments without authority under the terms of the 1986 Act.

  The Home Office cannot therefore collate, or even estimate, the number of animals bred for use in scientific procedures but which were killed without being used.

  Changes to the Act would be needed if statistics of this nature were to be collected and there are no plans to make any such changes.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking(a) within the EU and (b) within the UN to discourage animal experimentation. [22953]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The United Kingdom takes an active role with its partners in Europe to ensure the implementation of the provisions of European Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes.

  There is no forum within the United Nations for discussing the use of animals in scientific procedures. However, links with other countries (including a number of non-European Union countries) exist through the Council of Europe and the European Convention ETS 123 for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes.

  The Directive, the Convention and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 require that animals be used only where this is justified and where alternative methods of achieving the objective of the programme of work are not available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated concerning the reliability of the results derived from animal testing and their applicability in respect of humans. [22963]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No research has been commissioned by the Home Office, but account is taken of species differences in the design of experiments, in the range of animal species used, and in the correlation of animal-based data with other experimental data. This includes, where appropriate, that produced in human trials.

  The requirement to carry out safety tests using animals, the nature of the tests and the way the results are analysed and interpreted are the responsibility of other Government Departments and other international regulators, not the Home Office.

  Young Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to end the practice of holding males aged under 18 years in adult prisons while on remand. [23726]
  386
  Mr. Michael
  The Government are concerned about the continued remand of boys to prison which is a long-standing issue which the last Government failed to resolve. This Government's policy is to move to a situation where it is no longer necessary to remand 15 and 16 years olds to prison. I set out the background in detail in my answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 12 January 1998,Official Report, columns 64–66. We have reviewed this whole difficult area and decided that the priority is to give the courts the right range of powers to remand juveniles to secure accommodation, and there are provisions within the Crime and Disorder Bill to achieve this. The proposals do not apply to 17 year olds who are treated as adults for remand purposes. There is no proposal to change the remand arrangements for this older age group.

  We hope that the outcome of the current review of the secure juvenile estate and the work which the Prison Service is currently doing will enable us to end the practice of detaining juveniles with adults.

  Damages (Civil Recovery)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has conducted into the effect of legislation to facilitate the civil recovery of damages from criminals on the level of crime against businesses. [23949]

  Mr. Michael
  No such research has been conducted by the Home Office.

  Firearms
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the quantity of illegal arms in circulation in England and Wales and on the impact on the illegal arms trade of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [23490]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no reliable estimate of the number of illegal firearms in this country. The primary purpose of the 1997 legislation, especially the banning of handguns, is to provide greater safeguards for the safety of the public, given that the shootings at Dunblane and Hungerford were committed using lawfully held weapons. In 1996, there were 294 incidents in which handguns were stolen or otherwise misappropriated so the ban will remove a significant supply of weapons for use in crime.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the sums paid under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme to handgun owners(a) since the commencement of the scheme and (b) once full compensation has been paid. [23544]

  Mr. Michael
  On 6 January 1998, £30.3 million had been paid out under the Firearms Compensation Scheme. The latest total estimate for the Scheme, including payments for small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment to be surrendered during February, is £166 million.

  Drug Dealing Charges
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the totals of those(a) held in custody and (b) who received jail sentences subsequently following allegations that they have been dealing in

  387
  (i) heroin, (ii) ecstasy and (iii) cannabis in each of the last eight years; and what proportion they represent of the totals charged in each category. [23387]

  Mr. Michael
  Information for those appearing at the Crown Court in 1996 is given in the table. Crown Court data for earlier years and data for magistrates' courts are not sufficiently robust to allow for this level of detail.

  Defendants who appeared at the Crown Court in 1996 on charges of dealing1 in heroin, ecstasy and cannabis

  Dealing in:

  Heroin

  Ecstasy

  Cannabis

  Dealt with2

  992

  839

  2,720

  Held in custody

  625

  343

  794

  Percentage held in custody

  63 per cent.

  41 per cent.

  29 per cent.

  Held in custody and sentenced to immediate custody

  538

  301

  578

  Percentage of those held in custody sentenced to immediate custody

  86 per cent.

  88 per cent.

  73 per cent.

  1 dealing includes offences of supply and possession with intent to supply.

  2 includes all those acquitted or sentenced.

  Voluntary Work
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the funding of projects organised and administered by community and voluntary organisations. [21443]

  Mr. Michael
  We receive grant applications from a wide range of community and voluntary organisations. In addition, we are in frequent discussion with representatives of voluntary and community organisations about matters of mutual interest, including funding.

  Charity Collections
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department issues to the owners of premises approached by charities for permission to make collections who wish to verify the standing of the charity; and if he will make a statement. [22885]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 558–59.

  Littlewoods Directors
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the appointment of Ms Perkins as a non-executive director of Littlewoods. [24237]

  Mr. Straw
  My wife's unpaid appointment as a non-executive director of Littlewoods was made in July 1997, as part of a long-standing scheme for establishing better understanding between senior civil servants and the private sector. I am informed that 119 senior civil servants had appointments as non-executive directors in 1996–97. As a precaution against any appearance of conflict of interest, when my wife's appointment was made 388
  I arranged for any matters affecting the interests of Littlewoods to be considered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Home Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). This is in accordance with the Guidance for Ministers and precedent. No conflict of interest therefore arises.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tigers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what account she takes of the threats which exist to the future of the tiger population in India in deciding her Department's policy towards India. [22949]

  Clare Short
  Protection of the natural environment is one of the priorities for Department for International Development set out in the recent White Paper. All projects are screened for their environmental impact. We are supporting the Indian Government's efforts to save the tiger with a £50,000 grant to the Global Tiger Forum, £1 million to the Indira Gandhi Conservation Monitoring Centre (a non-governmental organisation), and contributions to multilateral agencies with global environmental agendas.

  Bulgaria
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made about the levels of poverty in the former Eastern bloc states with particular reference to Bulgaria. [23015]

  Clare Short
  The transition to democratic systems of government and market economies in the Eastern bloc has undoubtedly been accompanied by an increase in the incidence of poverty, particularly in Bulgaria. Our future work will place increased emphasis on trying to ensure that support to transition takes full account of the need to protect poor and vulnerable groups and to spread more widely the benefits from economic development.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about British assistance towards development projects in Eastern Europe, with particular reference to Bulgaria. [23016]

  Clare Short
  Our assistance to Eastern Europe is directed through the Know How Fund, which supports transition to pluralist democracy and market economies. We are reshaping Know How Fund programmes to give greater emphasis to protecting the poorest and to enabling the widest number of people to share in the fruits of change, as described in our pamphlet "Support for Transition Countries: A New Strategy", a copy of which I am placing in the Library of the House. In Bulgaria, we shall support the encouraging reforms being pursued by the new government, paying particular attention to the needs of poor and vulnerable groups.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the Bulgarian state orphanage system. [23017]
  389
  Clare Short
  We have discussed this issue with UK-based agencies working with Bulgarian orphanages. We conclude that we should help relieve the very poor conditions found in orphanages, and also assist the Bulgarian authorities to investigate community-based alternatives to institutional care. We are funding a £250,000 project with this aim, to be managed by the Save the Children Fund (UK). We have provided a total of £359,000 to UK-based agencies and the Bulgarian Red Cross for relief programmes with vulnerable families and institutions and are supporting social homes and orphanages through small grants. We have also contributed about £2 million to the European Union's Emergency Social Assistance and Humanitarian Office Programmes in Bulgaria.

HEALTH

  Adverse Incident Centre
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the Adverse Incident Centre. [23012]

  Ms Jowell
  The Adverse Incident Centre is managed by the Medical Devices Agency. It is the first point of contact for reporting adverse incidents involving medical devices used in the National Health Service.

  All reports are analysed and those involving death or serious injury, or with the potential to cause it, are investigated fully. Where appropriate, the agency issues a Hazard or Safety Notice to the NHS advising of hazardous products or unsafe procedures and the actions that should be taken.

  In many other cases, the manufacturer is asked to investigate the incident. The agency reviews the manufacturer's response and, where appropriate, notifies the reporter of the outcome.

  The agency publishes an annual survey of reported incidents as part of its efforts to increase awareness of the importance of reporting them.

  The Adverse Incident Centre database holds over 32,000 incident records, dating back to 1987. Over 5300 adverse incident reports were received in 1997.

  Travel Vaccinations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost benefit analysis has been conducted into the privatisation of travel vaccinations for infectious diseases. [22906]

  Ms Jowell
  The non-availability or unreliability of data on travel vaccines given in the United Kingdom makes formal cost-benefit analysis difficult. We recognise that inconsistencies and ambiguities have arisen over the years in the arrangements for travel vaccines and the way they are interpreted and are seeking to resolve these anomalies as part of an ongoing, internal review.

  Infertility Services
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities to ensure a more consistent provision of infertility services across the country. [23913]
  390
  Ms Jowell
  The White Paper "The New National Health Service" outlines a number of steps which the Government will be taking to improve the consistency of service provision throughout the National Health Service. We will challenge and address variations which are not based on the health needs and wishes of local people. We will aim for maximum consistency while still allowing appropriate local and individual responsiveness. We are currently considering what further advice the NHS should be given on infertility service provision.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the areas where his Department's report, Policy Research Programme: providing a knowledge base for health, public health and social care, has provided the basis for improvements in information to disabled people. [23357]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has funded improvements to information databases on disability equipment maintained by the Disabled Living Foundation and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. This followed evaluations in the Policy Research Programme suggesting that the European Union's Handynet system was not meeting the needs of users in the United Kingdom.

  A range of other research is commissioned which relates to policy on physical disability, sensory impairment, learning disability and the health of older people. It covers a broad spectrum of acute care and continuing health and social care including work of community nurses and therapy professions. The broad aim of the research programme is to provide information that will assist in the policy formulation on integrated services to meet the needs of elderly, disabled or vulnerable people and to enable them to live in the community where possible.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the level of prescription charges and the availability of multiple prescriptions at discounted prices. [23395]

  Mr. Milburn
  All aspects of prescription charges are being examined as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review which will report in the summer. The Review in the Department of Health is being undertaken in the context of our 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. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the proportion of medicinal drugs that are prescribed in order to counteract the consequences of other medicinal drugs. [23389]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is not possible to estimate the proportion of medicines prescribed to counteract the consequences of other medicinal drugs. However, medicinal drugs are often appropriately prescribed in combination, so that one drug may counteract the unwanted side-effects of another clinically necessary drug.

  Body Piercing
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the method of licensing for people performing ear-piercing and body piercing; and what plans he has to review the licensing procedure. [23318]

  Ms Jowell
  The current registration and licensing provisions for ear-piercing and cosmetic body piercing business provisions are described in "Regulation of Skin Piercing: a Consultation Paper" issued jointly by the Department of Health and the Welsh Office in October 1996. Copies are available in the Library.

  This consultation paper reviewed the current legislation which gives local authorities powers to control skin piercing businesses.

  We are considering our response to the consultation exercise.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hawk Jet Sales (Indonesia)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the delivery of Hawk Jets to Indonesia has been made; how much the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme has contributed to the sale; and, following the economic problems in Indonesia, what assessment he has made of the likelihood of full payment being received at the expected time. [23102]

  Mrs. Roche
  16 of the 40 aircraft remain to be delivered.

  ECGD has guaranteed two loans valued at US$530 million and £13.4 million for a contract for Hawk Aircraft made with the Indonesian Government in 1993 and one loan valued at £280 million in respect of a further contract made in 1996.

  In view of the recent financial turbulence in Asia, ECGD is monitoring the situation closely. Payments under the above mentioned loans are up to date.

  Credit Act
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce legislation for a new Credit Act. [23331]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  While I have no immediate plans to introduce legislation for a new Credit Act, I shall shortly issue a consultative paper on proposals for simplifying and clarifying aspects of Consumer Credit legislation.

  Finance Director
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will arrange for the Office of Fair Trading to place in the Library its evidence to the European Commission and the results of its survey of finance directors on the proposed merger of KPMG and Ernst and Young; and if she will make a statement. [23682]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Member States have a formal role in EC competition investigations. During an EC investigation, publication by the UK of views submitted to the Commission, or of the results of any 392
  surveys or work undertaken by the UK authorities, would compromise the effectiveness and integrity of that investigation. Such information could also be market sensitive.

  Copyright and Consumer Protection
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to ensure that on-line service and access providers, including telecommunications companies, take legal and administrative responsibility for ensuring that material which is transmitted or delivered by them does not infringe copyright or consumer protection legislation. [23575]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The general principle is that the law applies on-line in the same way that it does off-line. Under United Kingdom copyright law, on-line service or access providers are legally responsible for copyright infringement if they themselves incorporate copyright material into transmissions without the consent of copyright owners. Existing consumer law covers electronic commerce in the same way as it covers face to face transactions and other forms of distance communications (e.g. mail order).

  Employment Tribunal Awards
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many awards of over £50,000 were made by employment tribunals in cases of unfair dismissal in each of the last three years; and how many of these remain unpaid. [23462]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Awards for unfair dismissal are made up of two elements: a basic award and a compensatory award. The current maximum basic award for unfair dismissal case is £6,300, based on the statutory maximum of £210 per week, together with a maximum of £11,300 for the compensatory element. Section 125 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides for special awards in cases of unfair dismissal for Trade Union activities and in cases where the employer has failed to comply with an order for reinstatement. There have been no awards of over £50,000 in unfair dismissal cases in the last three years.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to make the payment of employment tribunal awards compulsory. [23461]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The payment of industrial tribunal awards is governed by similar procedures to other awards made by the civil courts. Employers who do not observe industrial tribunal monetary awards can be required to do so by court order.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date she last used a train in the course of her official duties. [22926]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: I last used a train in the course of my official duties on Monday 8 December 1997 travelling to London following a regional visit to Nottingham and Lincoln.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her current estimar>Mrs. Gillante of the cost of millennium compliance to United Kingdom businesses. [23593]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: I have made no such estimate. The cost will depend on many factors, including the extent to which businesses decide to fix, replace or abandon systems, and the speed with which they act. We believe that acting early will reduce the cost.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the engagements she has undertaken directly in connection with millennium compliance issues since 1 November. [23591]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: Ministers in my Department have undertaken numerous engagements directly in connection with millennium compliance since 1 November. These include:

  meetings with the Chairman of Action 2000;

  meetings with industry;

  speaking engagements;

  press interviews;

  the European Telecoms Council;

  bi-laterals with European counterparts.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will give details of the full staffing plan for Action 2000. [23630]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: Action 2000's Chairman and Director will be supported by three Team Leaders and an office manager, together with suitable clerical and administrative support. Action 2000, under its Chairman and Acting Director, is already co-ordinating detailed work under way by a number of teams dealing with the "year 2000" problem.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact on and cost to business of dealing with the date change problem and the introduction of the euro over the next two years. [23595]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: In respect of the date change problem, I have made no estimate. The cost will depend on many factors, including the extent to which businesses decide to fix, replace or abandon systems, and the speed with which they act. We believe that acting early will reduce the cost. The cost to business of the introduction of the Euro over the next two years will depend on many factors including how quickly and widely the Euro is actually used by business in the EU.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the issues currently being considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [23802]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) are currently considering three references which have been made to it. These are Underwriting Services, a monopoly reference, Bird's Eye Walls, a reference made under the Competition Act 1980, and Fresenius/Caremark, a merger reference.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to publish the latest payment times of Government Departments; and if she will list them against the previous figures. [23795]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 28–29.

  I will list the previous figures when I publish the payment performance figures for the financial year ending 31 March 1998.

  Chief Engineering Adviser
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to appoint a government chief engineering adviser; and from whom Her Majesty's Government receive engineering-related advice at present. [23818]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government already have a Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Robert May, whose responsibilities include fostering Science, Engineering and Technology throughout Whitehall. In addition, there are a number of officials and other bodies such as the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council whose responsibilities include the provision of engineering-related advice.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to ensure that accountancy audits assess operational dependence on information systems. [23812]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  It is the responsibility of the auditor in forming an opinion on whether a company's financial statements give a true and fair view to consider the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. This involves considering both the current and possible future circumstances of the business and the environment in which it operates.

  In the context of potential systems failures caused by the Year 2000 problem, we are encouraging the profession to consider their role, and the Accounting Practices Board, which sets the standards for auditors, is on the point of issuing a bulletin providing preliminary guidance to auditors in respect of their consideration of the Year 2000 issue in the audit of financial statements. The Audit Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has already published a Technical Release providing guidance to its members, and the Urgent Issues Task Force of the Accounting Standards Board is also in the process of developing proposals in respect of some aspects of the Year 2000 problem.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cubic metres of Brazilian mahogany were imported into the United Kingdom from Brazil in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [23518]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.
  395
  According to statistics kept by my Department, 9,966 cubic metres of Brazilian mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) were imported in 1996. We are still compiling the data for 1997.

WALES

  Referendum
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was his role in arranging meetings between the Chief Executive of Caerphilly County Council and others over the conduct of the count of the referendum vote in Caerphilly; [23741]

  (2) what information he received, and at what time, in respect of the count relating to the Blackwood Box during the referendum on a Welsh Assembly. [23742]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  NHS Trusts (Appointments)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which section of which regulation provides the statutory basis for the appointment of a chief executive to an NHS trust in Wales. [23543]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Regulations 3, 4(1)(a) and 17 of the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2024), as amended, apply to the appointment of chief executives to NHS trusts in Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Disablement Issues
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will meet the all-party group on disablement issues to discuss the scope and possible outcomes of the official and ministerial reviews of disability allowances, benefits and income support; [22582]

  (2) if he has read the notes of the ministerial meeting with officers and members of the parliamentary all-party group on disablement issues on Thursday 18 December 1997. [22581]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is in charge of the Comprehensive Spending Review for her Department. She met with representatives of the all party disablement group on 18 December 1997 to hear their views on welfare reform and has offered to meet them again. I am aware of the views expressed by the group.

  Daniel arap Moi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Daniel arap Moi. [22811]

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters he discussed with President arap Moi of Kenya during his recent brief meeting. [22818]
  396
  The Prime Minister
  I had a useful, private discussion with President Moi on 4 January 1998, which included the future challenges facing Kenya.

  I made clear to the President that these challenges—which include constitutional review, action on corruption and other governance issues—should be addressed in an open and democratic framework.

  Guidance for Ministers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to modify the code of conduct and guidance for Ministers. [23035]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy with respect to making appointments to quangos and other public bodies of those who do not support(a) current Government policy and (b) that of the body concerned. [23023]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministerial appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and to NHS bodies are subject to the Code of Practice and guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. His guidance makes it clear that appointments to public bodies should be made on the basis of merit and candidates are expected to subscribe to the objectives of the body on which they wish to serve. It states that political affiliation should not be a criterion for appointment (except where there is a statutory requirement or in the limited instances where the nature of the body makes it important that individual political parties are represented on it). These principles apply to all public appointments.

  Banbridge Bomb Incident
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the source, route in and component elements of the car bomb defused in Banbridge on 6 January; and if he will make a statement. [22911]

  The Prime Minister
  The RUC have advised that, at approximately 1900 hours on 6 January 1998, telephone calls were received by a radio station in Drogheda and the Samaritans in Newry warning that a bomb in a red Sierra car in the centre of Banbridge was due to explode in 20 minutes. The car was located in Newry Street, Banbridge and the area was cleared. Following a number of controlled explosions carried out by an Army Technical Officer, the device, which comprised approximately 500 lbs of home-made explosive, was declared safe.

  Police investigations into who or which organisation was responsible are continuing but the RUC have established that the vehicle passed through the border crossing point on the main Dundalk to Newry Road, travelling towards Newry at around 1800 hours on 6 January 1998.

  Unfortunately there are some in Northern Ireland not yet prepared to follow the path of peace and democracy and the RUC and Army remain alert to the possibility of

  397
  incidents such as this. They deserve great praise for clearing this device and preventing what could have been widespread damage, injuries and deaths.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when he has used a train in the course of his official duties. [22923]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: I have made eight train journeys since 1 May 1997.

  For reasons of practicality and security it is not always possible to travel by rail.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to encourage the use of public transport by Ministers. [22939]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: All Government Departments have been asked to draw up and implement green transport plans with the objective of minimising the environmental impact of their Department's transport activities.

  Ministers and Civil Servants will be expected to play their part to meet their objectives.

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Essex, North (Mr. Jenkin) of 18 December 1997,Official Report, columns 264–65, concerning official functions at No. 10 Downing Street, on which occasions the Minister without Portfolio was present. [22915]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: My hon. Friend attended seven functions.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a revised list of responsibilities of the Minister without Portfolio. [23571]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: In addition to the responsibilities announced when he was first appointed, my hon. Friend has responsibility within Government for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to enable the United Kingdom to sign Protocol 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights on the abolition of the death penalty. [22635]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: The availability or otherwise of the death penalty is a matter for Parliament to decide on a free vote. We have no plans to sign Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which would deny Parliament the opportunity to consider the issue in the future.

  The Government have supported international calls for the abolition of the death penalty because Parliament has consistently voted against re-introduction of capital punishment for murder.

  Cabinet Members
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if, when selecting members of his Cabinet, he took into account a candidate's private life. [23213]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: I considered a variety of factors when appointing the members of my Cabinet, the most important of which was their ability to carry out the official duties required of them effectively and well.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his responsibilities for millennium compliance issues. [23530]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The Government are acting to ensure that the national infrastructure is not damaged by the failure of electronic systems related to the year 2000 date change. We are working in partnership with business and through Action 2000 to alert business to the risks and what to do about them: every organisation must take responsibility for its own systems. We are undertaking a systematic appraisal of the electronic systems used by Government and their agencies. And we are taking the initiative with other Governments to tackle the problem on an international basis.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the revisions to the Ministerial Code since its publication; and when they were published. [23721]

  The Prime Minister
  There has been none.

  Whaling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the issue of whaling during his recent visit to Japan; and if he will make a statement. [23737]

  The Prime Minister
  I did not raise the issue of whaling with the Japanese Government during my visit to Tokyo. However, Government officials and the British Embassy in Tokyo are in regular contact with the Japanese on this important issue.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he now expects to meet the relatives of the victims who died on flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [24044]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs intends to meet the relatives in the next few weeks. I will meet them thereafter. I look forward to hearing their views at first hand.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Scottish Devolution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with the Lord Advocate's Office on matters relating to Scottish devolution. [21482]
  399
  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor regularly discusses a number of subjects with the Lord Advocate, and Scottish devolution has featured among these.

  Civil Justice Reforms
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of the civil justice reforms. [21484]

  Mr. Hoon
  The preparation for implementation of the civil justice reforms announced by the Lord Chancellor on 18 October 1997 is progressing as anticipated. More detailed information can be found in the Department's bulletin, "Implementing the Civil Justice Reforms", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. I am pleased to say we are on target to implement the reforms in April 1999.

  Legal Aid
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his proposed reforms of the legal aid system. [21485]

  Mr. Hoon
  Legal aid is not helping many of those in most need nor is it providing as much help pound for pound as it could. That is offensive to taxpayers and unfair to the poor. Our proposed reforms, by giving us better control over prices and what the money is spent on, will tackle those fundamental flaws in the present scheme.

  Magistrates Courts Service
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received in support of his proposals for the future structure of the magistrates courts service; and if he will make a statement. [21477]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have received 15 written representations in specific support of the statement I made on 29 October 1997 concerning the future structure of the magistrates' courts service. In addition, I have received general support from a number of interested organisations.

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22686]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has 15 secure cycle spaces in its Headquarters building in London and a further six in the Court Service Headquarters building, which are shared with other occupants. Outside London LCD Headquarters staff share buildings in Bristol and Leeds where two secure cycle spaces will shortly be available.

  The Public Trust Office have ten secure cycle spaces in London. In the Court Service information about cycle spaces outside headquarters is not held centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Small Claims Proceedings
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in 400
  the last 12 months a claim has been made in small claims proceedings for the cost of legal advice under County Court rules Order 19 rule 4 (2) (aa); and what was the value of the average amount awarded in that period. [22486]

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

  Privacy Law
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the law relating to privacy. [21483]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department has received representations about the law relating to privacy from media interests and members of the public.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner have been(a) accepted and (b) refused by the Commissioner in each of the last 12 months. [23030]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of appeals accepted and refused by the Commissioner in each of the last 12 months are as follows:

  1997

  Accepted

  Refused

  January

  61

  717

  February

  205

  296

  March

  332

  122

  April

  171

  103

  May

  72

  129

  June

  163

  257

  July

  88

  181

  August

  105

  280

  September

  155

  330

  October

  149

  96

  November

  202

  95

  December

  162

  250

  Totals

  1,865

  2,856

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Crown Copyright
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the Green Paper on the future of Crown copyright. [24422]

  Dr. David Clark
  A consultation paper, "Crown copyright in the Information Age", has been published today (Cm 3819). The Green Paper sets out a number of options for the future management of Crown copyright on which comments are invited by 31 March 1998. The Green Paper takes account of various representations received over the last year and meetings which officials have had with representatives of the UK Information Industries.

  The Government believe there to be considerable scope for reform designed to provide a lead and act as a catalyst for enabling effective dissemination and distribution of official information; and to aid the development of our Information Industries.
  401
  The Government look forward to receiving comments on the options and questions aired in the Green Paper. At the end of the consultation period, the Government will announce their conclusions. It is our clear intention, however, to place the management of Crown copyright on a simplified and sure footing which will serve the citizen and user of government-originated material well. The demands of the Information Age, with electronic delivery increasingly substituting for print on paper, requires a new approach. This Green Paper provides the basis for devising that approach.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce freedom of information legislation. [23361]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government's plans for freedom of information legislation are set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know" (Cm 3818) published on 11 December 1997.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs of nuclear weapons transportation. [21209]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: The annual cost of nuclear weapon transportation for financial year 1996–97 is in the order of £3 million. This figure represents the cost of maintaining and operating the convoys that transport the weapons, as well as the costs of personnel associated with this activity.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of training new recruits to armed forces to meet the rate of resignations as a percentage of each armed forces total salary bill; and if he will make a statement. [21650]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: The Armed Forces require about 25,000 new recruits each year to maintain the trained manpower requirement, and to meet the annual rate of outflow both in terms of resignations and natural wastage. The numbers of personnel who left the Armed Forces under Premature Voluntary Release (PVR) terms in 1996–97, and the numbers recruited from civil life by Service that year, are shown in the table:

  Service (a)

  PVR exits (b)

  Numbers recruited (c)

  Comparison: ((b) as a percentage (c)) (d)

  Naval Service

  2,013

  3,959

  151%

  Army

  6,224

  15,552

  40%

  RAF

  1,718

  2,684

  164%

  1 The comparison figures for the Naval Service and RAF are, to an extent, exaggerated because of the Defence Cost Study redundancy programmes, resulting in a lowering of the trained requirement. Recruits would not be needed to replace redundees in the same way that they would be to replace those leaving for other reasons.

  402
  The cost of initial recruit training in financial year 1996–97 for each Service was:

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Naval Service

  56.5

  x51=

  28.82

  Army

  69.6

  x40=

  27.80

  RAF

  26.8

  x64=

  17.15

  Total

  152.8

  73.77

  The costs in the left hand column cover initial recruit training for all intakes; that is, to maintain the trained manpower requirement, and to meet the annual rate of outflow both in terms of resignations and natural wastage. Although there is no direct relationship between numbers recruited and resignations in any given year, the costs in the right hand column express the approximate cost of training an equivalent number of recruits to those leaving on resignation. The total of £73.77 million represents just over 1 per cent. of the overall cost of the Armed Forces salaries bill for 1996–97.

  Military Personnel and Equipment (Private Use)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions since 1 May on which military personnel and equipment was hired out to private individuals or companies. [22618]

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

  Trawlers (Intelligence Gathering)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) of 17 December 1997,Official Report, column 214, on intelligence gathered by trawlers, if he will name the trawlers; if he will indicate whether the Gaul was used for intelligence purposes and whether it was being so used at the time of its sinking; and if arrangements for using trawlers for intelligence work and collecting intelligence from crews of other trawlers operated at Grimsby. [22637]

  Dr. Reid
  The three trawlers used for specific intelligence gathering operations in the mid-60s and early 1970s were MV Arctic Galliard, MV Lord Nelson and MV Invincible. All were owned by Hull-based companies, and almost certainly operated from that port. The MV Gaul was not involved in any such activity either before or at the time of her loss in 1974.

  More generally, personnel did occasionally embark on trawlers, during which time they were encouraged to report back any opportunity sightings of interest, as indeed were the trawlermen themselves. While we can assume that this did not necessarily centre on Hull-based vessels, there are no records to indicate whether trawlers or trawlermen from other ports were involved.

  United Nations Training School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom service personnel attended courses at the United Nations Training School in Ireland in each of the last three years. [22536]

  Dr. Reid
  The numbers of United Kingdom service personnel who have attended courses at the United Nations Training School in the Republic of Ireland in each of the last three years are as detailed:

  1997: 2

  1996: 2

  1995: 2.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from the Republic of Ireland's defence forces received training at military establishments in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [22535]

  Dr. Reid
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to release details of military assistance provided to other countries on the grounds that this information has been considered confidential between Governments, and that disclosure would risk damaging our international relations. However, this practice is being reviewed against the background of the Government's commitment to openness, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman once the review is complete.

  Personnel (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD(a) service and (b) civilian personnel were based in North Yorkshire at the latest date for which figures are available and in each of the previous 10 years; and if he will list those MOD units which were based in North Yorkshire 10 years ago, but have since been closed or moved elsewhere, indicating in each case the number of (i) service and (ii) civilian personnel employed 10 years ago. [23325]

  Mr. Spellar
  The detailed historic information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Centrally held information is as follows:

  Service and Civilian Personnel located in North Yorkshire

  Date

  Service

  Civilian

  30 June 1986

  11,500

  4,300

  30 June 1987

  11,100

  4,200

  30 June 1988

  12,300

  4,100

  30 June 1989

  12,300

  4,100

  30 June 1990

  12,800

  4,300

  30 June 1991

  12,600

  4,300

  1 July 1992

  13,400

  4,200

  1 July 1993

  11,800

  3,800

  1 July 1994

  10,800

  3,500

  1 July 1995

  10,600

  3,100

  1 July 1996

  10,100

  2,500

  1 July 1997

  n/a

  2,200

  n/a = Not available.

  Civilian numbers are full time equivalents. Prior to 1 April 1995, part timers counted as half of full time; after 1 April 1995 they were counted by the proportion of conditioned hours worked.

  404
  Ministry of Defence site closures in North Yorkshire in the last ten years include:

  Colburn Barracks, Catterick

  District Workshops, Strensall

  Driffield Camp, Nr Beverley

  Uniacke Barracks, Harrogate

  Hildebrande Barracks, Harrogate

  RAF Elvington

  AAC Harrogate (Army Apprentice Col. to reopen in September 1998 as Army Foundation College (Interim Solution)

  RAF Harrogate

  Government Buildings, Harrogate

  Hessay Supply Depot

  Scorton Storage Depot

  RAF Catterick (became Marne Barracks)

  Scarborough Training School

  Escrick Storage Depot.

  RAF Marston Moor
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use is currently being made of the surviving structures at RAF Marston Moor. [23381]

  Mr. Spellar
  As far as can be ascertained from remaining records, the former RAF airfield at Marston Moor was disposed of in the 1960s. My Department retains no interest in the former airfield structures and is not aware of their current ownership or use.

  Chapelcross Magnox Station
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department was first informed of the crack in the reactor at Chapelcross Magnox station. [23398]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence was first made aware on 25 June 1997 that a crack had been discovered in a heat exchanger shell in Reactor 2 at BNFL's station at Chapelcross. The fault was discovered during a routine maintenance inspection.

  Army Prosecuting Authority
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the administrative and judicial relationship between the Army Prosecuting Authority and the Lord Chancellor. [23730]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The post of Army Prosecuting Authority, which operates under the general superintendence of the Attorney-General, has no administrative, judicial or any other relationship with the Lord Chancellor. It is, of course, quite proper for the APA to give consideration to a legal issue which arises in any given case, whatever the source, including the Lord Chancellor, that alerts him to it.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is the current head of the Army Prosecuting Authority; and what are his other duties. [23732]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Major General Risius is, having been appointed by HM The Queen, the Prosecuting Authority for the Army. He is also the Director of Army Legal Services and, as such, is the most senior Army lawyer.
  405
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom the Army Prosecuting Authority reports. [23731]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Army Prosecuting Authority is subject to the general superintendence of the Attorney-General. The APA is independent of, and cannot be directed by, the military chain of command on cases he is asked to consider. The military authorities are informed on a case by case basis of decisions taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account the Army Prosecuting Authority takes of the opinions of the Lord Chancellor in determining whether or not to conduct a prosecution. [23735]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Army Prosecuting Authority operates under the general superintendence of the Attorney-General. The decision whether or not to prosecute a case referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority is made on the realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction based on the available evidence, and whether a prosecution is in the public and Service interest. These tests are essentially the same as those applied by the Crown Prosecution Service. It is of course, quite proper for the APA to give consideration to any legal issue which arises in a given case, whatever the source that alerts him to it.

  Prosecutions (Disobeyed Orders)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department will initiate a prosecution against a serviceman who disobeys an order not to speak to the media. [23736]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 4, in which I explained the function and status of the Army Prosecuting Authority. The Prosecuting Authorities of all three Services operate in the same manner.

  The decision whether to prosecute or not will depend on the specific circumstances of each case after an assessment has been made of all the pertinent legal, evidential and procedural issues. It is not possible to specify any particular circumstances which would apply.

  Major Eric Joyce
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what press briefing his Department provided in respect of a letter to him from the Lord Chancellor concerning Major Eric Joyce. [23734]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None. Since correspondence between Ministers is confidential and not for publication, and is properly withheld under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, no press briefing material was either required or provided.
  406
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings Ministers held to discuss Major Eric Joyce's conduct; and what was the date of such meetings. [23733]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Defence Ministers have taken part in no meetings which discussed what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Major Joyce, or determined the course of any action in train. These are matters for the Army. The matter of Major Joyce's conduct has inevitably been the subject of discussion between Ministers, and between Ministers and officials, concerning the handling of the public and parliamentary business to which the case has given rise.

  Seaton Barracks, Plymouth
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the negotiations regarding the transfer of Seaton Barracks, Plymouth, to English Partnerships will be completed; and if he will make a statement about the reasons for the delay. [23952]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following complex and detailed negotiations a final draft valuation report has now been submitted to English Partnership (EP) by independent Valuers acting for the Ministry of Defence. A deadline of 30 January has been set to agree the final report.

  Negotiations between the parties have become protracted due to the need to complete surveys and obtain detailed information and costings on a variety of infrastructure and planning issues including highways, utilities and playing fields. The requisite information has now been incorporated into the final draft valuation report.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence since when service personnel taking part in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down have been allowed to take away form the establishment copies of the written consent forms which they have signed. [22513]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 19 January 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the service volunteer programme at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down.
  Studies at Porton Down have always been conducted to the highest standard of ethical practice prevailing at the time and volunteers would have been required to give their informed consent to take part in a study. This may not, however, have been in the form of written consent as the written consent form used today has only been recently introduced.
  The consent forms currently signed by service volunteers attending CBD Porton Down are kept with the records at Porton Down. As far as staff at Porton Down are aware, no volunteer has asked for a copy of his consent form in the past. There is, however, no reason why copies of signed consent forms cannot be given to volunteers should they request them.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Animal Experiments (Porton Down)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals have been bred for use in experiments at Porton Down in each year from 1990 to 1997 to date; and how many of each year's total were subsequently killed without being so used. [22965]

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

  Table 1.

  Year

  Mice

  Rats

  Marmoset

  Rhesus

  Pigs

  Weaned

  Issued

  Surplus cull

  Weaned

  Issued

  Surplus cull

  Weaned

  Issued

  Surplus cull

  Weaned

  Issued

  Surplus cull

  Weaned

  Issued

  Market sales

  1990–91

  4,800

  1,468

  3,056

  13,596

  5,314

  9,348

  227

  104

  0

  39

  19

  0

  54

  46

  20

  1991–92

  4,503

  1,034

  3,108

  12,060

  4,987

  6,047

  237

  74

  0

  42

  33

  0

  14

  11

  0

  1992–93

  4,886

  857

  3,710

  11,663

  2,797

  7,677

  221

  72

  0

  44

  40

  0

  69

  48

  10

  1993–94

  4,376

  1,645

  2,348

  11,373

  3,883

  7,076

  224

  245

  0

  73

  50

  0

  79

  57

  20

  1994–95

  10,669

  3,867

  5,959

  9,009

  2,499

  7,188

  202

  12

  94

  59

  37

  0

  61

  52

  15

  1995–96

  8,628

  4,200

  3,884

  6,694

  2,553

  3,985

  134

  197

  0

  62

  43

  0

  96

  40

  46

  1996–97

  8,412

  3,225

  4,690

  5,716

  3,138

  2,072

  129

  149

  0

  49

  38

  0

  81

  45

  29

  1997–January 1998

  3,835

  923

  3,167

  4,344

  724

  2,504

  91

  49

  0

  42

  48

  0

  44

  42

  9

  Table 1 shows the number of animals weaned by the breeding unit at CBD, the number of animals issued from the unit and the number of animals culled by the Unit. This information is shown for the financial (not calendar) year. The numbers of animals (mice, rats, marmosets and Rhesus) issued represent those for scientific use at CBD and sales of surplus animals for scientific use at other establishments; the number of animals retained for replenishment of breeding stock is not shown in this table. Surplus pigs are sent to the local market; the figures do, however, include a small number kept for breeding at CBD. The number of animals weaned is not necessarily equal to the total of the number issued and the number of surplus stock culled in any one year. The discrepancies may be due to the occurrence of natural deaths or to the fact that animals, especially the Rhesus monkeys and marmosets, may not be issued until they are between 12 and 24 months old.
  The number of rats and mice culled is high, but in line with commercial operation. This is due to stringent experimental requirements, such as the use of single sex or narrow weight ranges. However, with the exception of 1994–1995, no Rhesus monkeys or marmosets have been culled. The marmosets were culled due to a very low usage at CBD and an unexpected fall in demand elsewhere. Table 1 shows that the breeding of marmosets was, therefore, significantly reduced in subsequent years.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of the last occasion on which he or his predecessor viewed(a) the conditions in which animals are kept at Porton Down and (b) an experiment to which an animal was subjected. [22967]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1 May 1997, no Minister from this Department has visited the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Porton Down. I intend to visit Porton Down myself in the next two or three months.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to introduce alternatives to animal experimentation at Porton Down; and if he will list the initiatives in this area since 1995. [22962]
  408
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 January 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the number of animals bred and used in animal experimentation at Porton Down in each year from 1990 to 1997 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  The animal species currently bred at Porton Down are Rhesus monkeys, common marmosets, Porton strain mice, Porton strain Wistar rats and Large White pigs. These colonies must be maintained at levels sufficient to protect the genetic base of the species and to supply all of DERA's requirements in terms of numbers, sex, age, weight, timing and quality.

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) I have been asked to reply to your question about the introduction of alternatives to animal experimentation at Porton Down.
  The use of alternatives to living animals has always been a priority in designing and executing research programmes to address the MOD's requirements.
  Alternatives must be fully considered when drawing up a project licence application. At CBD each project licence application is subjected to an internal peer group ethical review. The meeting is open to all members of staff, the details of the licence application are briefly presented and then the meeting is open to debate on both scientific and ethical concerns. One of the major aims is to ensure that the "3Rs' have been addressed, i.e., Reduction, Replacement and Refinement. The review can result in an application being completely rejected, held over subject to improvements being made or approved for submission to the Home Office.
  The review procedure is in line with the outcome of a Home Office Supplementary Note 'Interim report on the review of operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986' dated 6 November 1997 which emphasises the requirement that applicants for new project licences must demonstrate that they have sought alternatives before the use of animals is proposed.
  With respect to initiatives since 1995, a new in vitro toxicology laboratory has been commissioned at CBD Porton. The use of in-vitro cell and tissue culture models allows innovative research to identify novel medical countermeasures and examine the potential hazards and the mechanism of action of chemical and non-chemical agents. Similar models are also used in research to investigate treatment regimes and prospective protective and decontaminating compounds for use in a chemical warfare environment.
  Experiments using animals have also been essential for advances in the surgical management of injury. Another recent initiative has been the development of a variety of model systems for studies on the protection of personnel from physical injury and the identification of injury mechanisms. The model systems can be

  409
  grouped under three headings; animal cadaveric tissue; physical models; and computer models. They have either reduced or entirely replaced the use of living animals.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what external procedures exist to ensure that animals held at Porton Down are allowed so far as possible to follow normal behaviour patterns and that the are properly looked after. [22966]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), I have been asked to reply to your question about the way in which animals are cared for at Porton Down.
  All work and housing involving animals at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down are conducted strictly in accordance with the Home Office guidelines on the care and use of animals as defined within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is administered by the Home Office.
  CBS adheres to and expands upon existing Home Office codes of practice and guidelines for the care and housing of animals involved in scientific procedures. There is an on-going programme of environmental enrichment for all species. In particular, CBD Porton has an established track record of innovative approaches to the housing of non-human primates used in scientific procedures.
  Inspectors from the Home Office make both announced and unannounced visits to CBD Porton and have full access to all CBD animal facilities. As part of the Act the establishment must have a named veterinary surgeon and named animal care and welfare officers. At CBD these officers have formed and internal Animal Care and Use committee. The welfare of the animals is of paramount importance to Porton Down which has a world wide reputation for its excellent standards of husbandry and breeding of laboratory animals.
  In addition to the statutory controls in place, the Ministry of Defence has established an independent animal welfare committee—Animal Welfare Advisory Committee—which reviews the arrangements for animal care and welfare at sites within DERA carrying out work with animals, and advises on best practice. The reports from this independent committee are made to the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and are published in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are applied to procedures carried out at Porton Down. [22961]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), I have been asked to reply to your question about the application of the terms of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to procedures carried out at Porton Down.
  All work involving animals at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is carried out strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is administered by the Home Office.
  I hope this is helpful.
  410
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that animal experiments undertaken at Porton Down do not breach the terms of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 in respect of the deliberate infliction of wanton physical cruelty. [22964]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) I have been asked to reply to your question about the steps taken to ensure that animal experiments at Porton Down do not breach the terms of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
  All work involving animals at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) is carried out strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which superseded the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876). The Act covers all experimental work involving the use of animals, and states: "A person guilty of an offence under section 1 of the Animals Act 1911 or section 1 of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 in respect of an animal at a designated establishment shall be liable to the penalties specified in subsection (1) above".
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he shares information obtain from animal experimentation at Porton Down with other members of NATO; and to what extent he is provided with information obtained from animal experimentation carried out in other NATO countries. [22968]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA) I have been asked to reply to your question about the extent to which information gained from animal experimentation is shared among the members of NATO.
  The UK government participates, whenever possible, in collaborative research programmes which involve a sharing of data and, indeed, results from the UK research programme have been shared with other NATO members. One of the considerations in planning collaborative programmes and sharing information is the reduction of animal use on an international basis.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Aircraft Requirements
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the competition for Tranche 2 of the Hercules Replacement Programme and the possibility of leasing C-17 aircraft. [23137]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 255. One of the aims of the Strategic Defence Review is to ensure that our Armed Forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks asked of them. Our air transport requirement is therefore being scrutinised closely in the Strategic Defence Review.
  411
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to issue the invitation to tender for the RAF's Tranche 2 airlift requirements to Lockheed Martin and Boeing/McDonnell Douglas for a full competition. [23140]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 255. We are still considering with partners how a competition involving other aircraft might be organised.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of discussion of C-17 leasing on efforts to integrate(a) European aerospace companies, and (b) the aerospace industry in general. [23143]

  Mr. Spellar
  One of the aims of the Strategic Defence Review is to ensure that our Armed Forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks asked of them. Our air transport requirement is therefore being scrutinised closely in the Strategic Defence Review. Where appropriate, industrial and other implications will be taken into account in reaching decisions on the way ahead.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the(a) cost, (b) viability and (c) acceptability to the Royal Air Force of the Royal Air Force operating three types of heavy-lift aircraft; [23136]

  (2) what plans his Department has for a near-term lease of C-17 aircraft; [23138]

  (3) when the Government will make a full public statement on his Department's requirement for an outsize cargo airlift capability within the SDR; [23141]

  (4) what conclusions have so far been reached as part of the SDR in relation to the future of the FLA. [23139]

  Mr. Spellar
  One of the aims of the Strategic Defence Review is to ensure that the Armed Forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks asked of them. Our air transport requirement is therefore being scrutinised closely in the Review. We will announce our conclusions in the White Paper to be published at the end of the Review.

  Aerospace Industry (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account will be taken of the importance of maintaining aerospace jobs in(a) Chorley and (b) other North-West Region constituencies in future airlift planning. [23142]

  Mr. Spellar
  Any decision on our future airlift capability will take account of all industrial and employment issues, as well as all other relevant factors.

  Meat Procurement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria which Booker Foodservice are required to apply in meeting the best value for money terms under their contract to supply meat to the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [23974]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department's food supply contractor is bound to seek best market prices for meat. All purchasers are required to conform with quality 412
  specifications which, together with statutory requirements, ensure that only meat of an acceptable standard is supplied.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the contract terms which require Booker Foodservice to give full consideration to British products in procuring meat for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [23973]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department has specifically asked Booker Foodservice to ensure that it gives full consideration to the supply of British meat where this would meet the contract specifications and provide best value for money.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all meat and all meat products procured for the Armed Forces comply with(a) Council Directive 64/433/EEC, (b) the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 and (c) the UK specified risk material controls; and if he will make a statement. [23976]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes. Meat and meat products for the Armed Forces are obtained from contractors who obtain their supplies on the open market and those suppliers are required to meet all the statutory regulations.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the United Kingdom is contributing to the total cost of the Eurofighter; what percentage this represents of the total; what percentage of the work on the building and maintenance of the Eurofighter is to be carried out in the United Kingdom; and how many jobs will be created in the United Kingdom as a result of the project. [23388]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The latest estimated procurement cost of the Eurofighter programme is £42.8 billion, £15.9 billion of which is the estimated cost to the UK. This is some 37 per cent. of the total. For the Production phase, UK work share will be approximately 37.5 per cent. This is based on the number of aircraft we are buying in relation to the other nations. Present plans are for each nation to be responsible for the maintenance of their respective aircraft and we therefore expect the majority of maintenance work on the RAF's aircraft to be conducted in the UK. Currently, there are about 6,000 high technology jobs sustained by the development phase of the Eurofighter programme in the UK. This figure is expected to rise to about 14,000 at the peak of production.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research her Department has commissioned on the impact of minimum wages in Northern Ireland. [20780]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. The Government have appointed the Low Pay Commission to gather evidence and make recommendations in relation to the national minimum wage. To that end, the Commission visited Northern
  413
  Ireland on 31 October, and my Department is contributing fully to the evidence which the Government are soon to present to the Commission.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the full tender for baton training referred to in the letter from the Home Office Minister of State to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, dated 18 August. [20013]

  Mr. Ingram
  No; publication of the tenders for the provision of equipment for training purposes for the RUC would not be in the interests of national security.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [23266]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: No overseas visits have taken place where Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code applies.

  Holmes Cash and Carry (Robbery)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the circumstances relating to 414
  the arrest and preferring of charges against eight men in connection with a robbery at Holmes Cash and Carry at Boucher road, Belfast in February 1996; how many juries were selected and how many trials took place; what was the cost of the entire judicial process; for what reason this case was descheduled; and if she will make a statement regarding its conduct and outcome. [23385]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: On 12 February 1996, the RUC, acting on information received, went to the premises of Holmes Cash and Carry at Boucher road, Belfast and arrested seven men in the premises and one additional man a short distance away. All eight men were arrested under provisions of section 14(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1986 and conveyed to Castlereagh Holding Centre for interview. Charges were subsequently preferred for the offences of Armed Robbery and Unlawful Imprisonment.

  During the following court proceedings six juries were involved. There were six trials, two of which reached conclusion.

  The then Attorney-General certified that the charges in this case were not to be treated as scheduled offences. He has asked me to say that he did so because he formed the erroneous view that they were not connected with the emergency.

  It is not possible to provide the cost of this entire judicial process without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The Secretary of State does not intend to make a statement about the conduct and outcome of this case.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Team Sports
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department takes to encourage competitive team sports. [21451]

  Mr. Banks
  Our sport for all policy is dedicated to providing excellence at all levels and improving sporting performance, while increasing sporting opportunities for the many, not the few. It encompasses all sports including competitive team sports.

  Sport (Women)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he intends to take to encourage more women to participate in sport. [21452]

  Mr. Banks
  I am determined to improve opportunities for women of all ages and at all levels in sport. That goes for participants, competitors, coaches and administrators.

  The UK and Home Country Sports Councils actively encourage women to get involved in all sports. They are underlining the significant achievement of women in sport and helping improve levels of participation.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review his relationship with the Arts Council. [21455]

  Mr. Fisher
  My Department, in common with all others, is currently undertaking a fundamental review of expenditure. The review involves a re-evaluation of all the activities in the sectors covered by the department and its sponsored bodies, and of the relationships between them. The terms of reference for the review were published on 24 July and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is(a) the number and (b) the cost of projects funded by the Millennium Commission to date. [21457]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission has offered grant to 186 capital projects at 3,008 locations across the United Kingdom and through the Millennium Awards scheme has made 14,500 grants to individuals. It has also made a grant of £450 million to the Experience at Greenwich.

  The total amount offered to capital projects is £1,235,308,558. The total cost of these projects is £2,969,141,000. Awards to individuals currently total £39 million.

  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that projects funded by the Millennium Commission continue after 2000. [21461]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission has provided £1.24 billion in grant for 185 projects across the country. It is a condition of grant that projects show they can meet their revenue costs for the foreseeable future.

  United Kingdom Sports Institute
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on how the new United Kingdom Sports Institute will help British sportsmen and women excel in international competitions. [21458]

  Mr. Banks
  The United Kingdom Sports Institute will have the very best experts and facilities available. British sports men and women will be able to tap into the best advice on sports science, sports medicine and technology to assess how their training programme can be augmented and enhanced.

  The Institute will make a major contribution to providing support to the various sports Governing Bodies to achieve their aspirations of winning more medals and championships in international competitions.

  British-produced Films
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase the number of British-produced films shown(a) domestically and (b) internationally. [21459]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

  Sport (Ticket Touts)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the impact of the activities of ticket touts on sports funding. [21463]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Home Affairs and I met the CCPR recently to discuss the issue of ticket touts generally. The Government are looking at the extent of the problem and what practical solutions are available.

  Tourism (Training and Qualifications)
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage the improvement of training and qualifications in the tourism industry. [21464]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The development of a skilled, world class workforce is vital if the tourism, hospitality and leisure industry is to provide the excellent service that customers demand. A working group of the Tourism Advisory Forum is looking specifically at training, qualifications and quality of employment and will feed into the new tourism strategy which we will publish next summer.

  Non-league Football
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for the future of non-league football. [21465]

  Mr. Banks
  I recognise the importance of having a healthy structure of non-league football. I was pleased to be able to announce last June that £20 million will be available to the Football Trust over the next four years
  417
  from the Football Association and the National Lottery to support football at all levels, including the non-league game. I am also pleased that the Lottery is having such a positive impact on football generally with this sport being the second largest beneficiary of awards to date.

  Classical Music
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on Government support for classical music. [21467]

  Mr. Fisher
  Britain has an unrivalled and historic tradition of high quality classical music. My Department funds the BBC and the Arts Council of England, each of which invests significant sums in support of propagating and developing classical music. Local authorities also invest significant sums in support of the arts and classical music, and the British Council represents the best of British artistic talent abroad.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to change the lottery operator in 2001. [21468]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The appointment of the next National Lottery operator is a matter for the Director General of the National Lottery. Subject to the approval of Parliament, the National Lottery Bill provides that the Director General will be assisted in the selection process by an advisory panel.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to make national lottery funding simpler for small community organisations in Wales. [21448]

  Mr. Fisher
  The National Lottery Bill will help to ensure that more Lottery money goes to small scale projects in local communities. It will allow distributors to make application processes simpler and to move decision making to the grass roots.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are his plans for revenue funding to support capital projects funded from the National Lottery. [21453]

  Mr. Banks
  Lottery distributors may already provide revenue grants or endowments alongside capital grants if they believe it is a sensible use of Lottery funds. We have made clear our view that, over time, the focus of Lottery funding should shift from buildings to people. I intend to give the distributors greater flexibility in their strategies to shift the balance from capital to revenue support without entering into long-term commitments which will prevent them from meeting new needs.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of heritage lottery applications have been turned down(a) in 1996 and (b)

  Sponsored Body

  Role

  Name

  Region

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  Member

  Mary Rose Beaumont

  London

  Advisory Council on Libraries

  Member

  Mrs. Grace Kempster

  South East

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Council Member

  Mr. William Cadell

  Scotland

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Council Member

  Ms Jane Sharman

  London

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Mr. Rod Natkiel

  West Midlands

  418
  since the recent decision to establish health and education funds to be supported by the lottery, in respect of (i) the North West Region and (ii) the United Kingdom. [23366]

  Mr. Banks
  Twenty-four per cent. of applications considered by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) in 1996 for projects in the North West were rejected. The equivalent figure for the whole of the UK was 27 per cent. Plans to establish the New Opportunities Fund, the new good cause for health, education and the environment, were announced in the White Paper "The People's Lottery" in July 1997. Since then, the HLF has rejected 26 per cent. of applications for projects in the North West and 31 per cent. of applications for the UK as a whole.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the decision of the Heritage Lottery Board to reject the application from Southport Pier Trust for funding of the renovation. [23376]

  Mr. Banks
  Decisions on heritage Lottery applications are made independently of Government by the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the body responsible for the Heritage Lottery Fund. My right hon. Friend does not intervene in the process or comment on decisions made.

  Football (Racism)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to help combat racism in football. [21469]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are committed to stamping out racism in all areas of sport. One of the primary tasks for the Government's Football Task Force is to examine ways in which racism can be eliminated from the game, and to encourage wider participation by ethnic minorities, in playing and spectating. The Task Force will be making its recommendations to me shortly.

  Music Industry (Piracy)
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to combat piracy in the music industry. [21460]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government work closely with the music industry in identifying areas where piracy is a problem, and in taking action to deal with it.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East of 22 December 1997,Official Report, columns 410–13, on public appointments, if he will list the region or nation of home residence for each of the appointees. [23009]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information requested is listed in the table and notes the region/nation of residence at the time of appointment:
  419

  Sponsored Body

  Role

  Name

  Region

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Mr. Christopher Price

  Yorks and Humberside

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Mr. David Brierley

  South West

  Arts Council of England

  Member

  Mr. Trevor Phillips

  London

  British Film Institute

  Chairman

  Mr. Alan Parker

  USA/London

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Ms Joan Bakewell

  London

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Mr. Alan Howden

  London

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas

  Wales

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Mr. Tony Elliott

  London

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Mr. Ronnie Kells

  Northern Ireland

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Mr. Gus McDonald

  Scotland

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Mr. Simon Olswang

  London

  British Film Institute

  Governor

  Mr. Eric Senat

  London

  British Library Board

  Member

  Prof. Michael Anderson

  Scotland

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr. John Jarvis

  South East

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr. Alan Britten

  South East

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr. Des Wilson

  London

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Mrs. Janice Tchalenko

  London

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Mr. David Davis

  London

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Mr. John Buston

  East Midlands

  Crafts Council

  Member

  Ms Jennie Moncur

  London

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Mr. Loyd Grossman

  London

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  Miss Susan Underwood

  North East

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr. David Lunn

  South East

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Ms Jennifer Robson

  North East

  Horniman Museum

  Trustee

  Professor Sir Ghillean Prance

  South East

  Horniman Museum

  Trustee

  Professor Kenneth Gregory

  London

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  Sir Michael Checkland

  South East

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Professor Judith Elkin

  West Midlands

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Dr. Robert McKee

  West Midlands

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer

  Eastern

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Dr. Sandra Ward

  Eastern

  Library and Information Commission

  Member

  Mrs. Grace Kempster

  South East

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Trustee

  Ms Rajkumari Williamson

  North West

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Mr. Roger Bolton

  South East

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Mr. John McVay

  Scotland

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  Mr. Tim Bevan

  London

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Chairman

  The Hon. David Sieff

  London

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member

  Sir Adam Ridley

  London

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member

  Mrs. Stella Clarke

  South West

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Member

  Mrs. Amanda Jordan

  London

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Chairman

  Mr. David McDonnell

  North West

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Professor Preston King

  London

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Mrs. Vorrey Braithwaite

  North West

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Mr. Barrie Marsh

  North West

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Ms Janet Kear

  South West

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Trustee

  Councillor Frank Prendergast

  North West

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Chairman

  Mr. Michael Holroyd

  London

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Member

  Ms Hilary Mantel

  South East

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Member

  Mrs. Claire Tomalin

  London

  Radio Authority

  Deputy Chairman

  Mr. Michael Moriarty

  South East

  Reviewing Committee on the Exports of Works of Art

  Member

  Mr. Ian Gow

  Scotland

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Ms Joan Bakewell

  London

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Ms Sue McGregor

  London

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Sir Ian McKellen

  London

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  Mr. James Oliver

  London

  S4C

  Chairman

  Mr. Ifan Prys-Edwards

  Wales

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Member

  Mr. David Jordan

  Eastern

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Member

  Lord Stewartby

  London

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Member

  Professor Norman Palmer

  East Midlands

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Member

  Mr. Patrick Finn

  North West

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Member

  Mr. Jack Ogden

  Eastern

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Member

  Mr. John Casey

  North East

  Sporting Championships
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what campaigns he is involved in to bring major sporting championships to the United Kingdom in addition to the World Cup 2006. [23097]

  Mr. Banks
  In addition to providing full Government backing for England's bid to host the 2006 World Cup,420
  we are fully committed to work to bring the Olympics and other major international sporting events to the UK. I am working closely with the British Olympic Association and the UK Sports Council to ensure that we have the best possible chance of success. Lottery funds have been earmarked, through the World Class Events Programme, specifically to attract major events to this country.

  Military Heritage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will compile a register of historic military airfields; and if he will take steps to ensure their preservation. [23001]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend has a statutory duty to compile lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. English Heritage, his statutory advisers on listing, are currently undertaking a thematic study of military airfields and will be making recommendations to me later this year on buildings and structures at such sites which merit listing. Consent is required before any works can be undertaken to a listed building which would affect its special interest. In addition, the Defence of Britain Project, co-ordinated by the Council for British Archaeology, is compiling a record of 20th Century military sites and structures in the UK, although inclusion on the record will not attract any additional statutory protection.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the historic battlefields which have been lost since 1967 through development or whose setting has been damaged. [22999]

  Mr. Banks
  On the evidence of research conducted by English Heritage in preparing their Register of Historic Battlefields, the only important battlefield site in England lost through development since 1967 is Newark (1644).

  Of the 43 surviving battlefields included on the Register, the following are considered by English Heritage to have been significantly damaged by development since 1967, although not to the point of extinction:

  Adwalton Moor (1643)

  Naseby (1645)

  Neville's Cross (1346)

  Newbury I (1643)

  Northampton (1460)

  Stamford Bridge (1066)

  Tewkesbury (1471)

  Worcester/Powick Bridge (1651).

  The following battlefields are considered to have suffered significant damage to their settings since 1967:

  Chalgrove (1643)

  Shrewsbury (1403).

  Church Buildings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial assistance the Government provide for church building repairs; and what total funds it provided in each of the last five years. [23099]

  Mr. Banks
  The reply relates to England only. Government financial assistance for the repair of historic religious buildings in use is channelled principally via English Heritage's church and cathedral grant schemes. Funding for historic places of worship is also available from the Heritage Lottery Fund. In addition, my Department provides 70 per cent. of the funding of the Churches Conservation Trust, which preserves outstanding Anglican churches no longer in use for worship, and contributes (both directly and by way of 422
  English Heritage) to the costs of the Historic Chapels Trust, which cares for a number of non-Anglican buildings.

  Funding offered under these schemes in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  English Heritage church grant offers:

  12.50

  14.10

  11.00

  9.90

  110.00

  English Heritage cathedral grant offers:

  4.70

  0.30

  3.00

  3.00

  23.00

  Heritage Lottery Fund grant offers:

  —

  —

  1.56

  16.14

  115.82

  Churches Conservation Trust:

  1.92

  2.17

  2.51

  2.51

  2.48

  Historic Chapels Trust:

  £000

  329,100

  328,782

  335,125

  344,471

  350,552

  1 For 1997–98 English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are collaborating on a joint application scheme for places of worship in England, for which both organisations have allocated £10 million. The figure for Heritage Lottery Funding includes an additional amount for funding outside the joint scheme.

  2 Allocation.

  3 Figures are £ thousand.

TREASURY

  Outdoor Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the measures being taken by(a) the Valuation Office and (b) the Valuation Office in the Bristol area to reduce the avoidance of business rates on outdoor advertising sites. [22173]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Valuation Officers in England and Wales are responsible for including all rateable business uses in local rating lists and have been reviewing the position with outdoor advertising sites for some months. In the Bristol area, the review has been under way for some time similarly and a number of missing sites have been identified and will be assessed for rates by the Valuation Officer accordingly.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the taxation of social security benefits. [22121]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 December 1997]: At present, some social security benefits are taxable (including widow's benefit, retirement pension, jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefit), while some are not (income-related benefits such as income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit, disability living allowance/attendance allowance). In addition, incapacity benefit for all new cases since 1995 has been taxable.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently employed in the United Kingdom by foreign-owned companies, broken down by country of ownership. [22894]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Heath, dated 19 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent question on employment in the United Kingdom by foreign owned companies.
  The attached table provides data for all foreign owned businesses in the UK. It has been split to show each country within the EU, but for non-EU only 6 countries have been illustrated with the remainder grouped. This is in line with similar data that was produced in an article in the ONS publication Economic Trends, entitled "Globalisation: Scope, Issues & Statistics'—Table 9 in No. 528 November 1997. That data was however based on agriculture, manufacturing and distribution rather than whole economy.
  The table represents enterprises on the Inter Departmental Business Register (IDBR). An article giving further explanation on the IDBR is in Economic Trends No. 505 November 1995. Information relating to country of ownership details for UK enterprises is provided to the ONS by the market information firm Dun & Bradstreet.
  The analyses are based on an employment size measure (employees plus working proprietors). The primary source of employees data on the IDBR is the ONS inquiry, Annual Employment Survey.
  Copies of Economic Trends are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Analysis of foreign owned enterprises in the UK for the whole economy

  Country of ownership

  Employment

  Austria

  2,032

  Belgium

  10,067

  Denmark

  159,721

  Finland

  10,323

  France

  131,332

  Germany

  142,496

  Ireland

  45,747

  Italy

  20,638

  Luxembourg

  6,701

  Netherlands

  92,150

  Sweden

  42,090

  Other EU (Greece, Portugal and Spain)

  1,489

  Table 1: Mid-1996 resident population of the United Kingdom and its constituent countries and the percentage of all persons in the region who are aged 75+, 80+; and 85+

  Thousand

  Percentage

  All ages (a)

  Age 75 and over (i)

  Age 80 and over (ii)

  Age 85 and over (iii)

  Aged 75 and over of all persons

  Aged 80 and over of all persons

  Aged 85 and over of all persons

  United Kingdom

  58,801.5

  4,192.5

  2,368.7

  1,067.2

  7.1

  4.0

  1.8

  England and Wales

  52,010.2

  3,769.1

  2,138.3

  969.5

  7.2

  4.1

  1.9

  England

  49,089.1

  3,542.0

  2,013.3

  913.1

  7.2

  4.1

  1.9

  North-East

  2,600.5

  174.8

  94.2

  41.8

  6.7

  3.6

  1.6

  North West and Merseyside

  6,891.3

  484.5

  272.9

  123.3

  7.0

  4.0

  1.8

  North West

  5,470.8

  383.2

  215.7

  97.7

  7.0

  3.9

  1.8

  Merseyside

  1,420.4

  101.3

  57.2

  25.7

  7.1

  4.0

  1.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,035.5

  360.6

  203.4

  91.6

  7.2

  4.0

  1.8

  East Midlands

  4,141.5

  292.3

  162.0

  72.4

  7.1

  3.9

  1.7

  West Midlands

  5,316.6

  363.0

  198.2

  86.5

  6.8

  3.7

  1.6

  424

  Analysis of foreign owned enterprises in the UK for the whole economy

  Country of ownership

  Employment

  EU sub-total

  664,786

  Australia

  56,000

  Canada

  53,101

  Japan

  108,124

  Norway

  22,131

  Switzerland

  79,135

  USA

  749,892

  Other

  64,006

  Non EU sub-total

  1,132,389

  Total

  1,797,175

  Source:

  Inter Departmental Business Register (ONS).

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Personal Investment Authority to reimburse independent financial advisers who were fined for relying on computer-based records in the period up to the decision of the Personal Investment Authority to accept computer records as evidence of work done; and if he will make a statement. [22887]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has no such power.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the numbers and percentage of the population(a) in general and (b) over 60 years old, who are (i) over 75, (ii) over 80 and (iii) over 85 years in each region of the United Kingdom. [23670]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 19 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to reply to your recent question asking for an estimate of the numbers and percentage of the population (a) in general and (b) over 60 years old, who are (i) over 75, (ii) over 80 and (iii) over 85 years in each region and nation of the United Kingdom.
  The most recent data available are the mid-1996 population estimates. The attached table provides the information by the ages requested.
  425

  Table 1: Mid-1996 resident population of the United Kingdom and its constituent countries and the percentage of all persons in the region who are aged 75+, 80+ and 85+

  Thousand

  Percentage

  All ages (a)

  Age 75 and over (i)

  Age 80 and over (ii)

  Age 85 and over (iii)

  Aged 75 and over of all persons

  Aged 80 and over of all persons

  Aged 85 and over of all persons

  Eastern

  5,292.6

  386.5

  218.5

  97.8

  7.3

  4.1

  1.8

  London

  7,074.3

  439.9

  258.4

  118.7

  6.2

  3.7

  1.7

  South-East

  7,895.3

  610.5

  356.1

  165.2

  7.7

  4.5

  2.1

  South-West

  4,841.5

  429.9

  249.5

  115.8

  8.9

  5.2

  2.4

  Wales

  2,921.1

  227.0

  125.0

  56.4

  7.8

  4.3

  1.9

  Scotland

  5,128.0

  333.6

  183.1

  78.7

  6.5

  3.6

  1.5

  Northern Ireland

  1,663.3

  89.9

  47.3

  19.0

  5.4

  2.8

  1.1

  Table 2: Mid-1996 resident population of the United Kingdom and its constituent countries and the percentage of all persons aged 60+ in the region who are aged 75+, 80+ and 85+

  Thousand

  Percentage

  Age 60 and over (a)

  Age 75 and over(i)

  Age 80 and over (ii)

  Age 85 and over (iii)

  Aged 75 and over of persons aged 60+

  Aged 80 and over of persons aged 60+

  Aged 85 and over of persons aged 60+

  United Kingdom

  12,023.0

  4,192.5

  2,368.7

  1,067.2

  34.9

  19.7

  8.9

  England and Wales

  10,705.6

  3,769.1

  2,138.3

  969.5

  35.2

  20.0

  9.1

  England

  10,051.3

  3,542.0

  2,013.3

  913.1

  35.2

  20.0

  9.1

  North-East

  545.4

  174.8

  94.2

  41.8

  32.1

  17.3

  7.7

  North-West and Merseyside

  1,414.8

  484.5

  272.9

  123.3

  34.2

  19.3

  8.7

  North-West

  1,113.6

  383.2

  215.7

  97.7

  34.4

  19.4

  8.8

  Merseyside

  301.2

  101.3

  57.2

  25.7

  33.6

  19.0

  8.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,039.2

  360.6

  203.4

  91.6

  34.7

  19.6

  8.8

  East Midlands

  854.1

  292.3

  162.0

  72.4

  34.2

  19.0

  8.5

  West Midlands

  1,083.1

  363.0

  198.2

  86.5

  33.5

  18.3

  8.0

  Eastern

  1,100.0

  386.5

  218.5

  97.8

  35.1

  19.9

  8.9

  London

  1,222.4

  439.9

  258.4

  118.7

  36.0

  21.1

  9.7

  South-East

  1,651.2

  610.5

  356.1

  165.2

  37.0

  21.6

  10.0

  South-West

  1,141.0

  429.9

  249.5

  115.8

  37.7

  21.9

  10.1

  Wales

  654.3

  227.0

  125.0

  56.4

  34.7

  19.1

  8.6

  Scotland

  1,035.6

  333.6

  183.1

  78.7

  32.2

  17.7

  7.6

  Northern Ireland

  281.8

  89.9

  47.3

  19.0

  31.9

  16.8

  6.7

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library tables showing the distribution of men and women, distinguishing between part-time and full-time workers and, between industries and services as in Table 3 of the Labour Market Gazette, November 1996, page 491, for each local authority in Tyne and Wear. [23668]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 19 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on employment in Tyne and Wear.
  Data for every sector listed in Table 3 of Labour Market Trends are available on the NOMIS database, which is accessible through the House of Commons Library. However, to represent the confidentiality of individual businesses, many of the figures would be suppressed. I suggest instead that you refer to the data for each of the five local authorities which make up Tyne and Wear at SIC92 section level. At this level of aggregation none of the data are suppressed.

  Earnings
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated number of(a) men and (b) women who are earning less than £2.00 per hour in the United Kingdom. [23287]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tom Cox dated 19 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on earnings.
  The available information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), Summer (June 1997–August 1997) is shown below. The LFS provides earnings data for Great Britain and not the United Kingdom and is regarded as the most appropriate source for low pay data.
  Estimated numbers of men and women earning less than £2 per hour in Great Britain

  Men 220,000

  Women 283,000.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will alter the constituent elements of the RPI to reflect current spending on services and goods. [23573]
  427
  Mrs. Liddell
  The ONS recalculates weights for the constituent elements of the Retail Prices Index (RPI) at the start of each year using the latest available figures from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). For example, from February 1998, the RPI weights will use information from the FES for the period July 1996 to June 1997. This allows the ONS to reflect the most up to date spending patterns available and to introduce new goods and services into the index.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his German counterpart about the implications for the introduction of the euro of the challenge in the German Constitutional Court concerning the alleged failure of Germany to meet the Maastricht criteria for entry into a single currency; and if he will make a statement. [23294]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor meets his German counterpart on a regular basis, including at ECOFIN where a range of issues are discussed. However, it would not be right for me to comment on the internal matters of other EU Member States.

  London Art Market
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of VAT harmonisation in the EU on London's art market. [21466]

  Dawn Primarolo
  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 collector's pieces imported into the UK are eligible until 30 June 1999 for an effective rate of VAT at importation of 2.5 per cent. After that date, the UK should increase the VAT rate to at least the normal minimum effective reduced rate of 5 per cent.

  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 ensure that the position of the UK's fine art market will be properly represented in that review.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much public money he estimates will be spent on the millennium experience. [21472]

  Mr. Mandelson
  No taxpayers' money is being spent on the project other than that already committed by English Partnerships to prepare the site for development.

  Sponsored Body

  Role

  Name

  Remuneration

  New Millennium Experience Company

  Deputy Chairman

  Sam Chisholm

  None

  New Millennium Experience Company

  Board Member

  Sir Alan Cockshaw

  None

  New Millennium Experience Company

  Board Member

  Michael Grande CBE

  None

  New Millennium Experience Company

  Board Member

  Ruth Mackenzie

  None

  428
  The New Millennium Experience Company is receiving a Lottery grant of £399 million (net) from the Millennium Commission. A further £359 million of income will be raised from sponsorship, commercial activities, visitor revenue and disposal income.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much of the Greenwich millennium experience's budget will be raised through ticket sales. [21474]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company currently estimates that around £168 million of the budget will be raised from visitor revenue including ticketing and merchandising.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the role that Christianity will play in the Millennium Experience. [23229]

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the Government's policy in respect of the religious content of the Millennium Dome. [23576]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 388.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his oral answer of 8 December 1997,Official Report, column 660, if he will make a statement on his ticketing and transport arrangements for people from Scotland and the north of England. [21607]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is continuing to develop its ticketing strategy. The Company's aim is to set prices which are as low as possible and therefore are affordable to the maximum number of people whilst achieving the revenue required by the budget.

  NMEC will work closely with all public transport providers, especially coach and rail operators, and with the travel trade, with the aim of ensuring that travel tickets can be sold together with Millennium Experience tickets and that the transport providers offer keenly priced fares.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the future uses of the millennium dome after 2000. [21473]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 1 December 1997,Official Report, columns 2–3.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the names of the public appointments he has made since 1 May 1997; and which of those appointees receive remuneration. [23208]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information requested is listed in the following table.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Chinese authorities in respect of the conditions within Chinese orphanages. [22627]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: Orphanages were most recently discussed with the Chinese authorities at the expert level EU/China human rights meeting in Peking on 1–2 December 1997. We participated as a member of the EU Troika. At that meeting the EU agreed a package of technical assistance including projects for the protection of orphans.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if paragraph 3 of the Subsidiary Protocol of the Treaty of Amsterdam permits the repatriation of acquis communautaire. [22615]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Maastricht Treaty introduced as an objective of the European Union "to maintain in full the acquis communautaire" (Article B). The acquis communautaire is not an immutable body of law. Community agreements and legislation may be repealed or become obsolete. In the past the Commission has withdrawn legislative proposals on subsidiarity grounds. This option is made explicit in the Subsidiarity Protocol of the Treaty of Amsterdam, paragraph 3 of which states that subsidiarity"allows Community action within the limits of its powers to be expanded where circumstances so require, and conversely, to be restricted or discontinued where it is no longer justified".

  European Commission Directorates
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) of 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 498, what percentage of total staff working at A grade the figure for British nationals represents for each directorate of the European Commission. [22658]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 498, was based on information from the European Commission dated July 1997. Since then, the Commission has supplied new information based on December 1997 figures.

  According to this updated information, the number of British nationals working at A grades in each Directorate General of the Commission is as follows:

  Directorate General

  Number of British officials at A grade

  British officials as percentage of total staff at A grade

  I

  37

  17.0

  IA

  48

  13.5

  IB

  26

  12.4

  2

  11

  8.5

  3

  15

  7.4

  4

  15

  8.2

  5

  23

  11.1

  6

  28

  8.2

  430

  Directorate General

  Number of British officials at A grade

  British officials as percentage of total staff at A grade

  7

  15

  16.1

  8

  46

  11.6

  9

  9

  6.3

  10

  14

  8.8

  11

  23

  14.8

  12

  6

  9.1

  13

  19

  14.3

  14

  4

  1.4

  15

  19

  12.4

  16

  18

  12.3

  17

  22

  13.3

  19

  7

  8.4

  20

  8

  10.4

  21

  14

  13.2

  22

  10

  8.9

  23

  9

  12.3

  24

  8

  9.1

  Cycle Spaces
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many secure cycle spaces there are in his Department. [22687]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department has 166 secure cycling spaces—84 in London and 82 at Hanslope Park, near Milton Keynes.

  Travel Insurance
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of United Kingdom citizens who travelled abroad without travel insurance in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997; and if he will make a statement. [22598]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no accurate way of measuring this. For our own purposes we estimate that 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of Britons still do not take out travel insurance when they travel abroad. Our estimates for 1995, 1996 and 1997 are similar. We strongly advise that all travellers take out insurance.

  Immigration (Cubans)
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visitor visas for entry into the United Kingdom from Cuban nationals have been turned down in each of the last two years. [22497]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The number of visit visa applications from Cuban nationals refused in Havana in the last two years was: 65 (5.1 per cent.) in 1995; 63 (4.5 per cent.) in 1996 and 99 (5.4 per cent.) in the first 11 months of 1997. Records are not kept of applications from Cuban nationals applying in other countries.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications in each of the last two years for visitor visas have been from Cuban nationals. [22496]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The number of visit visa applications from Cuban nationals in Havana in the last two years was: 1,975 in 1995; 1,420 in 1996 and 1,822 in the first 11 months of 1997. Records are not kept of applications from Cuban nationals applying in other countries.

  Arms Control Disarmament Research Unit
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the annual budget for his Department's Arms Control Disarmament Research Unit in the last two years. [22507]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There is no specific budget for the two staff of the Arms Control and Disarmament Research Unit. Their costs are included in the overall budget of the FCO's Non-Proliferation Department. For much of financial year 1996–97, there was an additional part-timer member of the Unit; the costs for that year totalled approximately £125,000. In financial year 1997–98, costs to date total approximately £80,000.

  Arms Control Treaties
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work his Department is currently carrying out to support and implement arms control treaties in the fields of(a) chemical weapons and (b) nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [22508]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department works closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the UK remains in full compliance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which the United Kingdom ratified in 1996, and to promote the universality and effective implementation of the Treaty. This involves coordinating and preparing positions for, and leading the UK Delegation at, the periodic Conferences of States Parties of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague; and preparation for and attendance at the regular meetings of the OPCW's Executive Council.

  The UK is a Depositary State for and a leading member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This Department leads and co-ordinates UK participation in the review process for the treaty, which includes a Review Conference every five years and Preparatory Committee meetings in the three years preceding each Conference. The FCO is also sponsoring legislation to enable the UK to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

  The UK is also a member of the Australia Group and Nuclear Suppliers Group, which formulate and implement export controls for materials, equipment and technology relevant to chemical weapons and nuclear programmes respectively. The UK will become chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in April 1998.

  This Department also leads on a range of actions in other multilateral fora (e.g. the European Union, NATO) and in bilateral action with individual states in support of the objectives of these treaties and bodies.

  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work is being carried out by his Department to support the negotiations to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. [22509]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry in support of international efforts to establish 432
  a legally binding Protocol to strengthen compliance with the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Our officials lead the UK delegation at these negotiations in Geneva and chair the key sessions on compliance measures. They also pay a key role in consultation within the European Union on these issues. One of the priorities for our EU Presidency is to promote decisive progress in the negotiations in 1998.

  Israeli-Palestinian Goods
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on Israeli requests to the EU to extend the scope of the EU-Israeli Association Agreement to include jointly produced Israeli-Palestinian goods in exemption to customs duties. [22546]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We strongly support efforts by Israeli and the Palestinian Authority to establish cumulation of rules of origin under the EC/PLO and EC/Israel agreements. This would allow goods jointly produced in Israel and the Palestinian Authority preferential accession to EU markets. To allow such cumulation, both sides must harmonise their rules of origin. The European Commission has held technical talks with both sides to assist them in this task.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated value of goods jointly produced by Israel and Palestine and imported by the EU; and what proportion have been imported at zero tariff. [22547]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No statistics are available for imports of goods jointly produced in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of(a) the total amount received by Iraq under oil sale-related agreements and (b) the amount taken as reparations. [23042]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since December 1996 when Iraq accepted the "oil for food" scheme, Iraq has been permitted to sell US dollars 4 billion worth of oil. UNSCR 1143, which renewed the scheme in November 1997, allows for the sale of a further US dollars 2 billion worth of Iraqi oil. Thirty per cent. of the proceeds from Iraqi oil goes to the UN compensation fund which pays compensation claims from individuals, corporations and governments who suffered direct loss, damage or injury as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990.

  Land Mines
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government plans to incorporate the Ottawa Landmine Treaty into United Kingdom law; and what steps it is taking to persuade other countries to ratify the treaty. [23611]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We intend to introduce legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows. We shall continue to take every opportunity to urge as many
  433
  countries as possible to sign the Ottawa Convention and to encourage those that have signed to ratify the Convention as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to ratify the land mines treaty; and if he will make a statement. [23298]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We intend to ratify the Convention as soon as the necessary legislation is in place. We shall continue to take every opportunity to urge as many countries as possible to sign the Ottawa Convention and will press for complementary action to promote a global ban on anti-personnel landmines in international fora, including the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

  Turkey
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on how, at what level and when the human rights problem in Turkey is being raised with the Turkish government. [23574]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We regularly raise human rights in our Ministerial and official level contacts with the Turkish authorities.

  I raised this issue with the Turkish Minister for Human Rights in Ankara in October 1997. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had a number of discussions on the subject with the Turkish Foreign Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter during his meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister in December.

  The Turkish authorities recognise that this is an area in which they need to make progress. Our objective is to encourage them along that path.

  Kenya
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the ill-treatment and torture of children in Kenya; and if he will make a statement. [23464]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are concerned by reports of incidents involving police brutality in Kenya, particularly those where young children appear to be involved. We shall be raising the cases highlighted by Amnesty International with the Kenyan authorities. More generally we continue to raise with the Government of Kenya our concerns about human rights abuses in that country and our desire to see police officers guilty of such offences brought to justice.

  Algeria
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards Algeria. [23562]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We share the widespread revulsion at the barbaric massacres in Algeria and continue to condemn the violence. Following close consultation with our EU Partners, the Algerian Government has agreed to our proposal, as EU Presidency for a Troika Ministerial visit to Algeria, from 19 to 20 January 1998. I will lead the mission and will continue the political dialogue 434
  between the EU and Algeria which was established at the time of the Algerian Foreign Minister's talks in Luxembourg in November 1997.

  Mrs. Gaynor Regan
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which Mrs. Gaynor Regan has accompanied him at public expense since 2 May; and if he will make a statement. [23533]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: There have been no such occasions.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost to public funds of each occasion on which Mrs. Gaynor Regan has accompanied him on his official duties. [23488]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: There has been no cost to public funds.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he sought the advice of his Permanent Under-Secretary of State about the participation of Mrs. Gaynor Regan on official visits organised by his Department. [23487]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 January]: Yes.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the purpose of his return to the United Kingdom from the Indian sub-continent during Her Majesty the Queen's visit to Pakistan and India; and what was the cost of the travel involved. [23625]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: It was agreed with Buckingham Palace that I should accompany Her Majesty on her State Visits while she was in the capital cities of both countries and calling on members of their central governments. I was therefore in Islamabad on 7 and 8 October and in Delhi on 13 and 14 October, and not in attendance in the intervening period. It would not have been an effective use of the time of myself or my officials to stay on when I had no official business. These arrangements were agreed in July, long before the State Visit. The travel costs for myself and two officials for Pakistan were £4,211 and for India £11,547. On the outward journey to Pakistan we travelled on The Queen's aircraft.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the journeys overseas by the spouse or partner accompanying him since 1 May were in every case authorised in advance by the Prime Minister. [23572]

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he sought the permission of the Prime Minister in accordance with paragraph 69(a) of the Ministerial Code for Mrs. Gaynor Regan to accompany him on overseas visits at public expense. [23723]
  435
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he sought the Prime Minister's prior assent for each overseas visit made by Mrs. Gaynor Regan when accompanying him at public expense. [23382]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: Yes, except when Ms Gaynor Regan accompanied me to Dublin on 3 November when there was no cost to public funds.

  Tigers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had since 1 May 1997 with representatives of the Indian government in respect of the threats to the tiger population in that country; and what were the outcomes of those decisions. [22950]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I met the Indian Environment Minister during my visit to India in June last year and expressed my support for the work of the Global Tiger Forum which stemmed from an Indian initiative. We continue to maintain close links with the Forum and will invite the Secretary General to the next meeting of the CITES Standing Committee to be held in London in March, where the plight of the tiger will be a major item on the agenda.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the income from the sale of land occupied by GCHQ in Hong Kong; and where that money has been deployed. [23396]

  Mr. Fatchett
  After deduction of sales costs, a total of £12,451,316.54 was transferred to the Treasury from the sale of property owned by Her Majesty's Government and used by GCHQ in Hong Kong. The property consisted of 20 houses purchased by the British Government to accommodate GCHQ staff at Hong Lok Yuen.

  Immigration
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the application for entry clearance made by Zia Ul Haq at Karachi, reference KA 173579 will be determined. [24008]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our High Commission in Karachi to provide a detailed account. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, will write to the hon. Member within one week of receiving that account.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Inspections
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given to Ofsted on the frequency with which school inspections should be carried out. [23314]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: HM Chief Inspector of Schools was given a legal duty to secure the inspection of all maintained schools in the
  436
  four-year period ending on 31 July 1997 in respect of secondary schools and 31 July 1998 in respect of primary and other schools. Thereafter, the Education (School Inspection) Regulations 1997 provide for schools to be inspected at intervals of no more than six years from the end of the school year in which their previous inspection took place. In the case of failing schools and schools with serious weaknesses, HM Chief Inspector secures more frequent inspections.

  Literacy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons schools taking part in the literacy summer schools project are not required to use standardised tests of reading before and after the project takes place. [22796]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The Department carried out a full evaluation of last year's scheme using National Curriculum Key Stage 2 tests, and also a qualitative survey of participants. A summary report of the evaluation is available in the Library. The Department is considering how best to evaluate this year's expanded scheme.

  Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of trained teachers who qualified in(a) Australia, (b) New Zealand, (c) Canada and (d) South Africa who were teaching in maintained schools in London on (i) 1 January 1997 and (ii) 30 September 1997. [23610]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The information requested is not available.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of the intake for each maintained grammar school from outside the boundary of the local authority in which it was situated in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [23609]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of the intake from maintained primary schools at each maintained grammar school in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997; and if he will make a statement. [23607]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Net Year
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria will be used to assess the success of Net Year. [24006]

  Dr. Howells
  UK Net Year is a private sector initiative developed and funded by industry, and it is not for the Government to set criteria to judge its success. The Government does, however, welcome the contribution of UK Net Year to promoting progress towards the targets outlined in its consultation paper "Connecting the Learning Society".
  437
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what budget his Department has allocated to Net Year and what proportion of the total budget for Net Year will be covered by(a) public and (b) private funds. [24005]

  Dr. Howells
  UK Net Year is a private sector initiative funded by industry with no Departmental funding. As with numerous other private sector projects, it is planned to be complementary to the Government's National Grid for Learning initiative.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will legislate to abolish the threshold exempting employees from the employment provision of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [23765]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on the review of the exemption provisions on 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 519. The threshold cannot be abolished by regulation, but could be lowered to two. We will be considering whether to lower it and, if so, to what level following the outcome of our consultations and review.

  The Government have no plans for primary legislation to abolish the threshold. We will await the recommendations of the Disability Task Force before considering what form of primary legislation may be necessary to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the regulation-making process of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that the Government(a) are currently using and (b) have plans to use and to improve the effectiveness of the Act. [23617]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Regulations have been already been made in exercise of the following powers of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA):sections 3(9), 5(6) and (7), 6(8)(a), (c) to (g) and (10), 12(3), 8(6) and (7), 16(3), 19(5)(c), 20(7) and (8), 24(5), 50(8), 54(6), 52(8), 56(2) and (4), 60(6), 62(2), 67, 68(1) and 70(3) and paragraphs 1(2), 2(4), 3(2) and (3), 4(2)(a) and 5(a) of Schedule 1, 3(a) and (b) and 4 of Schedule 4, and 4(4) and 7 of Schedule 5.

  Section 30(3) of Part IV of the DDA amends the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and regulations have been made under sections 5 (7A) and (7B) and 89 (4) of that Act. Regulations have been made under sections 30 (7) and (8) of Part IV of the DDA. Those sections have been repealed but consolidated into section 528 of the Education Act 1996.

  Regulations have been made under sections 30 and 32 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996. Section 63(2) of the DDA has been replaced by section 32 (2) of that Act.

  A regulation would be needed under section 7(2) if, following the current review of the threshold exempting small employers from the employment provisions in Part II of the Act, it is decided to lower the threshold.
  438
  Regulations are expected to be needed under the powers in section 15 when it is decided to implement the duty on trade organisations to make reasonable adjustments. Proposals for regulations would be subject to consultation.

  A number of regulations are expected to be needed to help clarify the operation of the remaining rights of access to goods and services under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. Proposals for regulations will be subject to consultation in due course.

  The Government will be using their powers under Part V of the DDA to require that in future buses, coaches and trains and taxis are fully accessible to disabled people including those who need to travel in their wheelchair. The first stage of the consultation on taxis was completed at the end of November 1997. Consultation on the proposals for buses and coaches is now under way and will be followed by consultation on the draft regulations for rail vehicles.

  Regional Development Funds
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much interest was accrued on funds received from the European Social Fund under Objective 5b, before they were distributed to projects via the regional Government Offices in(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996, (d) 1997 and (e) 1998. [23855]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The funds received under the European Social Fund are not held in interest bearing accounts and therefore do not accrue any interest; like other Government cash balances they reduce the interest payable on total Government debt.

SCOTLAND

  Road Bridge Tolls
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual cost of abolishing all trunk road bridge tolls in Scotland. [19795]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: As this matter is not under consideration, no estimate of the cost of abolition has been made. Such costs in respect of the Erskine and Skye Bridges, the only tolled bridges on trunk roads in Scotland, would be calculated in terms of the contracts that exist between The Scottish Office and the operators of the bridges. The Scottish Office would also incur the on-going costs of maintaining the bridges.

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Union he has attended. [23584]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, the environment and fisheries in Scotland has attended two meetings of the Agriculture Council.

  Feudal System
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what estimate he has made of the financial resources and compensation required to abolish feudal superiors' rights; [23537]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement on 12 January 1998, Official Report, column 22, what is his estimate of the financial resources required to abolish the feudal system; and what are the public expenditure consequences. [23312]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: Until the Scottish Law Commission formulates its final recommendations, it is not possible to estimate what, if any, financial resources will be required to abolish the feudal system or what will be the public expenditure consequences. Similarly, it is not possible to estimate what, if any, financial resources and compensation will be required to abolish feudal superiors' rights until the Commission has come to a view on this matter and until Ministers have had an opportunity to consider the Commission's recommendations.

  Forestry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the apportionment of Forest Enterprise's assets; what agreement has been reached on the apportionment; and if he will make a statement. [23485]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: Land managed by Forest Enterprise is owned by the three Forestry Ministers (the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food). After devolution, it is proposed that, in Scotland and Wales, such land will be transferred to the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly respectively.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to authorise sales of standing timber belonging to the Forestry Commission prior to the Scottish Parliament taking responsibility for this matter. [23743]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Forestry Commission fells and restocks areas of woodland as part of the sustainable management of its estate. About half the trees which are felled are sold standing, and the purchasers make their own arrangements to fell and market them. This routine forestry practice does not require specific authorisation by Ministers.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to authorise further sales of Forestry Commission land prior to the Scottish Parliament taking responsibility for this matter. [23764]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Last May, we imposed a moratorium on the sale of forest land managed by the Forestry Commission. This moratorium is still in place. We are currently considering the Commission's future activities as part of its Comprehensive Spending Review. We will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Chapelcross Nuclear Reactor
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when his Department was first informed of the crack in the reactor at Chapelcross Magnox station; [23397]
  440
  (2) to what extend the age of the nuclear reactor at Chapelcross was a contributory factor to the crack which was publicised by BNFL in December. [23399]

  Mr. Wilson
  The existence of a defect in a weld in a heat exchanger in reactor two at Chapelcross was detected during the reactor's annual refuelling, maintenance and inspection shutdown. It was reported to the Scottish Office on 26 June 1997.

  In accordance with normal procedures, details of the weld defect were contained in the Chapelcross newsletters, dated 3 July and 11 December 1997, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Details were also contained in the Health and Safety Executive's Quarterly Statements of Incidents at Nuclear Installations, published on 30 September 1997.

  I understand that the age of the reactor at Chapelcross was not a factor in the defect which has been in place since the original manufacture of the vessel concerned. The preferred option for repair has been discussed between BNFL and the NII which will involve the isolation of the affected heat exchanger. In the meantime, the NII has given approval for the reactor to operate.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the reports by consultants on the various aspects of the competing sites for a Scottish Parliament. [23539]

  Mr. McLeish
  The design feasibility studies for each of the four sites were placed in the Library on 12 January along with a summary of the Comparative Transport and Environmental Assessment.

  I have today placed in the Library copies of the full Comparative Transport and Environmental Assessment report and copies of a draft working brief for the design of the Scottish Parliament building.

  Arable Aid Payments
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete payment of the 1997 arable aid payments. [23950]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Subject to the continuing co-operation of farmers on matching every field on their claims against the Field Identification System (FIS), i.e. the new register of unique field identifiers, we aim to make most final payments under the 1997 Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) by 31 March 1998.

  Northern Ireland Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the plans of Northern Ireland Electricity to lay the undersea portion of the Scotland to Northern Ireland electricity interconnector. [23724]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The plans of Northern Ireland Electricity have been examined in detail. The undersea portion of the proposed Scotland-Northern Ireland interconnector is planned to pass to the north of the Beaufort's Dyke explosives disposal area. Consideration has been given to the detailed seabed surveys undertaken on behalf of Northern Ireland Electricity which have allowed the planned cable route to be optimised in order to avoid a wide range of natural obstructions and dumped
  441
  munitions. A number of unidentified objects have been located electronically and Northern Ireland Electricity is confident that the proposed method of installation by water jetting will allow these objects to be avoided. The Government have therefore accepted Northern Ireland Electricity's conclusion that the risk of disturbance is minimal.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff making personal visits to people in receipt of disability living allowance as part of the Integrity Project have a recognised medical qualification. [21098]

  Mr. Denham
  One our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. We need to focus on those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have set up the Benefit Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Angela Browning, dated 15 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding how many staff making personal visits to people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) as part of the Integrity Project have a recognised medical qualification.
  The role of staff visiting DLA recipients as part of the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) is to obtain an up to date statement about the needs of those people who have a DLA award at the higher rate of mobility combined with the highest rate of care. The visiting officers do not make decisions on entitlement to benefit either at the visit or subsequently.
  The visiting officers are administrative staff. All BIP visiting officers receive a detailed 5 day training course which covers all aspects of visiting technique. The course also includes a special session on disability awareness, written and delivered by the Disablement Income Group.
  In cases where information gathered indicates that there may have been a change in circumstances since the award was made, an Adjudication Officer may decide to review the award. In such cases they may refer the case to the Benefit Agency Medical Services (BAMS) for advice, approach the General Practitioner or some other medical professional, for a factual report, or ask BAMS to arrange for a report from an Examining Medical Practitioner.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support (Basildon)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of family credit there are in the Basildon constituency; and how many people in the Basildon constituency are in receipt of income support. [22831]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Family Credit and Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  442
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Angela Smith, dated 16 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many families in Basildon are in receipt of Family Credit (FC), and how many are in receipt of Income Support (IS).
  The information is not available in the format requested. The FC Unit produces statistics which show the number of families in receipt of FC within individual Benefits Agency (BA) office areas. IS produces information which relates to the number of families in receipt within a BA District.
  The BA's Essex South West District includes offices at Basildon, Grays and Harlow.
  The number of families in receipt of FC, in the BA office at Basildon, was 2,088 as at September 1997. The number of families in receipt of IS, in the Essex South West District, was 33,865 as at November 1997. These figures are provisional and subject to change. The information serves as a "snap-shot" of the position at the date of the scan and does not provide details of the number of families in receipt of benefit annually.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans she has to change the all work test; [23145]

  (2) what research she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effectiveness of the current all work test in making decisions to meet individual needs; and if she will make a statement. [23146]

  Mr. Denham
  Our Comprehensive Spending Review is looking at all aspects of provision for sick and disabled people including the appropriateness of the all work test. Our aim is to ensure that the emphasis is placed on people's capacity for work and not their incapacity; their ability and not their disability. The evaluation of the all work test published in February 19971 and the results of the survey of people leaving Incapacity Benefit2 will inform our thinking. We are currently considering our research requirements for 1998 and details of our programme will be published in due course.

  Source:

  1 "Evaluation of the Incapacity Benefit Medical Test"—In-house Report 26 (DSS February 1997).

  Note:

  2 As part of the evaluation of Incapacity Benefit the Policy Studies Institute is carrying out a major survey of people leaving Incapacity Benefit. The report is expected to be available later this year.

  Social Security System
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the most serious problems currently facing the social security system in order of priority. [23848]

  Mr. Field
  Our aim is to build a Welfare State fit for the 21st century, which extends opportunity and security to all.

  Our core principles are that:
  Society has a responsibility to help people in genuine need, who are unable to look after themselves;
  Individuals have a responsibility to help provide for themselves when they can do;

  443
  Work is the best route out of poverty for people who are able to work;
  Fraud and abuse should be minimised and rooted out wherever found.

  We are currently examining where the current system fails to meet these core principles.

  New Deal (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of people in the Warrington, North constituency who will benefit from the New Deal. [23851]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The New Deal for Lone Parents fulfils the Government's commitment to provide practical help and advice to lone parents on Income Support who want to work. One of the eight areas in which the programme is already available is the Benefits Agency District of North Cheshire, which covers the Warrington North Parliamentary Constituency. The New Deal for Lone Parents will be available to all lone parents who make a new claim for Income Support from April 1998, and will be extended to cover existing claimants from October 1998.

  Estimates are not available by Parliamentary Constituency for the number of people who might benefit from the New Deal for Lone Parents. It is, however, estimated that there are around 3,000 lone parents receiving Income Support in the Warrington Local Authority District and who could therefore take advantage of the services already on offer through this programme.

  The New Deal for Young People will give work, education and other opportunities to those aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for over six months. This programme will begin in 12 pathfinder offices this month and will be introduced nationally in April 1998. It is estimated that, in 1998–99, 1,700 people would become eligible for the New Deal for the Young Unemployed in the Halton and Warrington unit of delivery, which comprises the areas covered by the Runcorn Bridgewater, Runcorn Rutland, Warrington and Widnes Employment Service Jobcentres.

  The New Deal for Young People will be followed in June 1998 by the New Deal for the long-term unemployed, which will provide subsidies to employers of £75 per week for six months if they take on those people aged 25 or over who have been unemployed for two years or more. The latest available data indicate that there are around 1,000 people in this category in the Halton and Warrington unit of delivery.

  The number of people in the Warrington area who will benefit from the New Deal for people with a disability or long-term health problem is not yet known. A tendering exercise is currently underway for innovative schemes, and plans for introducing personal advisers for this group will be announced later this year.

  Residential Care Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she plans to announce her proposals to reform the residential care allowance. [23766]
  444
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government are undertaking a number of reviews of key policy areas, including a review of the funding of long-term care. The future payment of the Income Support Residential Allowance is included in these reviews.

  It is too early in the review process to be able to give a firm commitment on when we will be ready to announce the outcome.

  Low Pay
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of working women earn less than the national insurance contributions ceiling. [23951]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1995–96 an estimated 94 per cent. of female employees earned less than the Class 1 National Insurance contributions Upper Earnings Limit.

  Source: 1995–96 Family Resources Survey.

  Appeals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes in policy there have been since 1 May concerning the granting of leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner. [23031]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There has been no change in policy regarding appeals to the Social Security Commissioner since May 1997. The Social Security Bill paves the way for modernising the delivery of Social Security. It includes measures which will improve the arrangements for handling appeals from tribunals to Commissioners. The Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 15 January.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of beef sold in the United Kingdom is sourced from cattle born after 1 August 1996; and if he will make a statement. [21599]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: Information on the percentage of beef sold in the United Kingdom sourced from cattle born after 1 August 1996 is not readily available but so far few animals of this age will have been slaughtered. In time the age of an increasing number of slaughtered animals will be known as a system of cattle passports, which record birth and death details, was introduced in Great Britain on 1 July 1996.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment the European Commission has made of the advantages of banning beef exports from countries which have detected BSE in their cattle. [23360]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission has banned exports of beef from the UK, but has not banned exports from other Member States which have reported cases of BSE. The Commission takes advice on BSE related issues from the Scientific Steering Committee. Summaries of the proceedings of that Committee are published on the Internet at: http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg24/scientif/ncomm0/index.html

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answers of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 117 and 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 355, if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers of pigs exported for breeding to each country concerned from January to October. [22613]

  Mr. Rooker
  Computer records up-dated since my previous answer indicate that the number of breeding pigs certified for export from the United Kingdom between January and October 1997 inclusive is as follows:

  Country

  Number

  Belgium

  36,438

  Canada

  600

  Czech Republic

  559

  China

  795

  Denmark

  974

  Falkland Islands

  25

  France

  26,573

  Germany

  40,595

  Greece

  661

  Republic of Ireland

  1,080

  Italy

  8,837

  Japan

  248

  Latvia

  102

  Malaysia (Peninsula)

  338

  Mexico

  709

  Netherlands

  13,344

  Nigeria

  46

  Philippines

  164

  Poland

  80

  Portugal

  83

  Romania

  217

  Slovakia

  87

  South Korea

  538

  Spain

  19,372

  Taiwan

  70

  Thailand

  482

  Russia

  350

  United States of America

  122

  Total

  153,489

  This information is provisional and subject to change.

  It is common practice for export health certificates to be issued in anticipation of exports which do not then take place. The central computer system is updated periodically to remove details of withdrawn export consignments from the records but we cannot guarantee

  Payment rates (£ per head)—Sheep annual premium scheme, suckler cow premium scheme, hill livestock compensatory allowances

  Sheep annual premium

  Suckler cow premium

  Including LFA supplement Cash prices

  Excluding LFA supplied 1997 prices

  Including extensification premia Cash prices

  Excluding extensification premia 1997 prices

  Cash prices

  1997 prices

  Cash prices

  1997 prices

  1993

  24.41

  27.32

  19.25

  21.55

  93.90

  105.12

  65.73

  73.58

  1994

  22.21

  24.28

  16.96

  18.45

  115.12

  125.83

  87.49

  95.63

  1995

  26.95

  28.47

  21.26

  22.46

  143.04

  151.10

  114.43

  120.88

  1996

  19.04

  19.64

  13.66

  14.09

  155.15

  160.03

  124.12

  128.02

  1159.48

  1159.48

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2146.52

  2146.52

  117.36

  117.36

  446
  that this information is complete. Confirmation of the actual numbers of animals exported could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cattle Identification Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had, and with whom, concerning the adoption of a secondary button tag on cattle, and what decision he has made. [22988]

  Mr. Rooker
  Consultations have been held with the Joint Industry/Government Working Group on animal identification, with individual UK eartag manufacturers and the relevant services of the European Commission. Guidance will be provided to cattle keepers once a decision has been taken on which eartags will be approved for use in the UK for identifying cattle. In the meantime, all eartags on the current approved list can be used.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to use the plastic secondary tag on cattle as a means of electronic identification. [23038]

  Mr. Rooker
  EU legislation on identification of cattle requires visual identification through the use of approved eartags and does not require compulsory electronic tagging of animals. However, there are no obstacles to preclude eartags being adapted to incorporate electronic devices and the Government welcome such initiatives by the Industry.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (Funding)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total research funding to SEAC, from(a) United Kingdom Government sources and (b) European Union Sources in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [23186]

  Mr. Rooker
  SEAC is an advisory body. It does not, itself, carry out any research and is therefore not in receipt of research funding from any source.

  Livestock Support
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the levels of(a) suckler cow, (b) ewe premium and (c) HLCA payments for beef and sheep per animal in cash prices and at 1997 prices for each of the last five years and his proposals for 1998–99. [23484]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]The information requested is set out in the tables. The proposed rates for 1998–99 are not yet available.
  447

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  SDA Beef cow

  DA Beef cow

  SDA High rate ewe

  SDA Lower rate ewe

  DA Ewe rate

  Cash prices

  1997 prices

  Cash prices

  1997 prices

  Cash prices

  1997 prices

  Cash prices

  1997 prices

  Cash prices

  1997 prices

  1993

  63.30

  70.86

  31.65

  35.43

  6.50

  7.28

  3.60

  4.03

  2.86

  3.20

  1994

  47.50

  51.92

  23.75

  25.96

  5.75

  6.28

  3.00

  3.28

  2.44

  2.67

  1995

  47.50

  50.18

  23.75

  25.09

  5.75

  6.07

  3.00

  3.17

  2.44

  2.58

  1996

  47.50

  48.99

  23.75

  24.50

  5.75

  5.93

  3.00

  3.09

  2.65

  2.73

  1997

  397.50

  97.50

  469.75

  69.75

  5.75

  5.75

  3.00

  3.00

  2.65

  2.65

  1 Rate less than 1 livestock unit per hectare.

  2 Rate greater than 1 livestock unit and less 1.4 livestock units per hectare.

  3 Includes beef special aid of £50.00.

  4 Includes beef special aid of £46.00.

  LFA = Less Favoured Area.

  n/a = Not available.

  SDA = Severely Disadvantaged Area.

  DA = Disadvantaged Area.

  Final Sheep Annual Premium rate for 1997 not yet fixed.

  Beef (Subsidies)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subsidies are paid to beef farmers in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European Union countries. [23358]

  Mr. Rooker
  Beef farmers in all EU Member States, including the UK, may apply for subsidies under two EU-funded headage Schemes. The Suckler Cow Premium (SCP) Scheme provides an annual payment in respect of female breeding animals, while the Beef Special Premium (BSP) Scheme provides either one or two payments in respect of each male animal fattened for slaughter. Automatic "extensification" payments are made under both schemes to claimants with stocking rates below set levels. Additional EU-funded SCP payments are made to producers in geographical areas within the Union, including Northern Ireland, which meet certain economic and agricultural criteria. Limited nationally funded SCP payments are also made in some Member States. A Deseasonalisation Premium, designed to encourage a more even pattern of slaughterings throughout the year, may also be paid to producers in Member States where concentration of slaughtering in a certain time frame has historically proved a problem. All EU producers in Less Favoured Areas may additionally claim under national schemes (part-EU funded) designed to offset the structural handicap they face. In the UK, payments are made per head of eligible breeding cow under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances scheme.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the United States Government in respect of the possible segregation of genetically modified foods; and if he will make a statement. [23405]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has close working contact with US Government officials on food issues including genetically modified foods and segregation.
  448
  However, World Trade Organisation rules do not permit Governments to demand the segregation of crops that have been approved as safe.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if measures to require segregation of genetically modified crops would constitute a breach of World Trade Organisation agreements; and if he will make a statement. [23406]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 17 July 1997,Official Report, column 504.

  Beef Imports (Argentina)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what concessionary tariff arrangements are available on beef imported from Argentina; and if he will make a statement. [23977]

  Mr. Rooker
  Argentina, along with certain other named countries, is able to benefit from the following concessionary tariff arrangements for imports of beef into the European Community:28,000 tonnes under the high quality ("Hilton") fresh, chilled and frozen import quota (as part of an overall total of 58,100 tonnes);
  700 tonnes of frozen thin skirt (as part of an overall total of 1,500 tonnes).

  In addition, such countries may export beef under concessionary import tariff arrangements which are open to all exporting countries. Under these concessionary import tariff arrangements, beef may enter the Community at reduced or zero levy.

  Concessionary import arrangements are made under World Trade Organisation Agreements, to the proper observance of which the UK Government are deeply committed. The volume of imports allowed under these concessionary schemes amount to only 5 per cent. of total community production.

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

Listed Churches: VAT on Repairs
Lord Lloyd-Webber Lord Lloyd-Webber asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why Value Added Tax at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. is levied on the repair bills of listed churches (grade I and II), even when the repairs have been partly funded by English Heritage and its equivalents in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, building repairs have been taxed at the standard rate since VAT started in 1973. The Government do not consider it appropriate to make an exception for listed churches.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which I am sure he appreciates I find a little disappointing. If one wandered across the road to Westminster Abbey one would see that its central tower was unfinished. Surely, it is ludicrous that the central tower could he completed but would not be subject to VAT when at the same time the fabric would be subject to a 17.5 per cent. rate of tax. Is the Minister aware that the total amount of money given by English Heritage is less than that collected from the Churches in the form of VAT on church repairs? Since the EU has agreed a concessionary rate of 5 per cent. on church repairs and repairs to listed buildings, does the Minister agree that it would be a wonderful recognition of Jesus Christ's contribution to the millennium to allow church repairs to be treated in that way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord underestimates the extent to which money is made available by the Government to listed churches. In the current financial year English Heritage has allocated £20 million to the churches grant scheme. The Department for Culture has allocated £2.4 million to the Churches Conservation Trust. There is also money available from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
As to the paradoxical situation whereby repairs are standard rated whereas alterations are zero-rated—here I agree with the noble Lord—although alterations were originally zero-rated when we introduced value added tax, the relief was proposed to be withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1984. Under great pressure he conceded that this should not be the case for any listed building, but he had no power, and the Government have no power, to change the standard rate for repairs.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is nothing in European
1244
legislation, notably the sixth directive on VAT, that takes away the right of the British Government to make a change should they so desire?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. The sixth directive allows new reduced rates rather than new zero rates, which are not permitted. It allows these reduced rates to be applied only to housing and not to the buildings which are the subject of this Question.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government willing to press the European Commission to add listed building repairs to the services eligible for reduced rates of VAT, of course at national discretion, ultimately with a view to abolishing VAT on these buildings altogether?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. The Government take the view, as did the last government, that if VAT is to be effective it must be as simple as possible. To begin to make a distinction between listed churches and other listed buildings would add to the complexity of collection of VAT.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the churches of this country, especially the listed ones, are an important part of the national heritage—even more so as we approach the celebration of 2,000 years of Christianity? Would it not encourage all the volunteers who give their time, talent and money to maintain our churches if the Government made a move in their direction and at least reduced the level of VAT, which I understand is affected by the European directive but comes up for reconsideration every two years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no quarrel with the sentiments behind the question put by the noble Baroness, but she is wrong in saying that we have power to apply zero-rating to buildings of this kind. Our powers within the VAT directives are quite limited, as I explained to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should like to press the point made by the noble Lord, Lloyd-Webber, on the amounts involved. Does the Minister agree that a figure of about £18 million is paid by the Churches in VAT, which is comparable with the figure that he has already given? Does he agree that effectively the Government take back the money that they give to the Churches? If the Minister is not willing to alter the regulations on VAT, would not a simple way forward be to make the grants much larger to take account of the VAT that must be paid?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the VAT bill of the churches as a whole—I refer to all Churches and not just the Church of England—applies very widely and includes the bill to all charities. It would be

1245
particularly difficult to try to exclude the Church with most listed buildings from this general rule and neither this nor any other government have felt able to do so.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, did the Minister hear the deputy Prime Minister on the radio this morning imploring builders to build in cities rather than on greenfield sites? As the Minister said, 17.5 per cent. VAT is charged on all repairs to all buildings and renovations, including energy efficiency measures, and yet if one builds on greenfield sites the tax is not levied. Does the Minister believe that that is something that should be looked into seriously if we are not to cover our green belts with houses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear the deputy Prime Minister this morning. The zero-rating of all new construction applies to greenfield sites and to what are called brownfield sites in the cities. The difficulty regarding the distinction between repairs and alterations, which is what led Mr. Lawson, as he then was, to seek to withdraw the relief for alterations, is that it is possible to disguise one as the other. For that reason, all governments have thought it desirable to have a consistent regime.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am amazed by the Minister's reply. I remember distinctly, as I am sure the whole House does, that in opposition he was keen to have those changes made. He was always pressing the government. We have heard encouraging noises from the Secretary of State and his department. Surely they now have the chance to do something.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have explained the restrictions on government action which are the result of the VAT regime. If the noble Baroness is referring to the review of charities tax announced in the July Budget, I can tell her that there have been 2,500 replies and that further consideration is being given to the replies. It is likely that there will be a further consultation document in the spring. The Government are in no way resiling from their intention to review charities tax law.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since 1973 this matter has been one of the principle bones of contention between those concerned with the preservation of ancient buildings and the Government? Is he aware that its effect is to cause the owners of old churches and other listed buildings to let decay continue, because of the forbidding aspect of VAT, until there is nothing for it but partial demolition and alteration, which is VAT free? That is a major cause of the loss of listed buildings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the effect of the distinction between repairs and alterations is paradoxical and does not
1246
always reflect what we would wish to happen to listed churches. As he says, the issue has been there for a long time. The underlying paradoxes behind it do not change.

Ambassadorial Appointments
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will invite a United Kingdom citizen from an ethnic minority who has served the nation with distinction to serve as ambassador in one of the United Kingdom's major embassies at an early opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made it very clear that he wants to broaden the base from which we draw our ambassadors overseas. We are committed to increasing the representation of minority ethnic and other under-represented groups in the FCO, especially at senior levels. If an individual from outside the FCO who had served the nation with distinction had the right personal qualifications and experience to do the job, we would certainly want to consider inviting him or her to serve as an ambassador in one of our major embassies, regardless of his or her ethnic background.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her excellent reply. Will she accept my congratulations on the appointment of Mr. Limbit Spencer, who is the FCO liaison officer for minority ethnic communities? Will she also, at the earliest opportunity, present to the Prime Minister the name of a UK citizen from the minority ethnic community to serve as an ambassador?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to accept the noble Earl's congratulations. We have no appointments in the pipeline, but we shall want to consider that option in the near future. I thank him also for his remarks about Mr. Limbit Spencer, whom we appointed in December last year. It is the first such appointment in Whitehall. Mr. Spencer will be looking at possible recruitment outside the FCO and at developing the opportunities for staff currently serving within the FCO.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are no longer any nationality constraints on second generation British citizens joining the FCO?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, that is the case. The noble Lord is right.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, how many of our citizens of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin are today in any of the top grades in the FCO?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is because my answer to my noble friend is so gloomy

1247
that we have to address this issue with considerable vigour and determination. I am sorry to tell the House that there are currently no individuals from the ethnic minorities that he mentions in any of the 222 posts worldwide which would attract ambassadorial status. For that reason we must attack this issue with determination.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in approving the principle that ethnic minorities should pay their part in the Establishment, will the Minister assure the House that positive discrimination will not take precedence over the most able qualifications?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to give the House that assurance. We shall continue to recruit and to promote on the basis of fair and open competition. I hope that my Answer that we shall be looking not only for people who have served the nation with distinction but those who have the right qualifications and experience for the job satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister give the further assurance that the Government will not depart too far and too readily from the procedure of appointing ambassadors from among the senior ranks of the Diplomatic Service?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we want to broaden the basis. In answer to my noble friend I had to tell the House that, unfortunately, we do not have considerable numbers of people of ethnic minority background in the pipeline. We need to develop the individuals within the FCO at all levels. I am sure that the noble Lord is right and that the majority of ambassadorial appointments will be drawn from within the FCO. However, the House should be under no illusion; we want to broaden the basis, but we wish to look outside on the basis that I have indicated.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate Sir John Coles who, under the previous Government, was committed to making the Foreign and Commonwealth Office more representative of Britain's ethnic make-up by encouraging applications from ethnic minorities? Under his stewardship the proportion of ethnic minority applicants to the FCO's graduate fast-stream doubled from 1994 to 1995. That shows the seeds sown to address the important issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Janner.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to add my voice to the congratulations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Sir John Coles, in particular, played an important part in the FCO's open day, which took place on 15th September last year. He was a firm enthusiast for that day, and I hope that on that basis we shall be able to plan for future open days. But we need to do more: we need to ensure that the appointment of Mr. Limbert Spencer, in
1248
examining ways in which we can look further outside the FCO and develop those people already inside the FCO, is taken forward.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I welcome the initiative being taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the commitment being shown by the Government to tackling inequality. Does the Minister agree that, given the under-representation at senior levels, mechanisms need to be put in place not only to promote individual development but also to promote organisational change?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that organisational change is necessary. We hope to put forward proposals to include community fora within ethnic minority communities, a sustained programme of advertisements and editorials in the minority ethnic press and a special recruitment fair in June. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to move forward on a number of important fronts.

Gulf War Veterans: DLA Entitlement
2.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what conditions the entitlement to disability living allowance of individual Gulf War veterans in receipt of 70 to 80 per cent. war pensions is under review, particularly in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, no such review is targeted specifically at Gulf War veterans. The Benefits Agency of Great Britain is currently carrying out a review of various categories of disability living allowance awards, as ongoing awards are vulnerable to changes over time—people improve or deteriorate—and we need to check that the correct amount of benefit is in payment. If the noble Countess has any particular cases in mind, and if she will let me have the details, we can arrange for a meeting or to have them followed up.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Is she aware that about three years ago the convenor of the OP information network and I had a meeting with senior officials of the Benefits Agency about the problems surrounding chronic fatigue syndrome, OP poisoning and the symptoms of fluctuating illness? Members of the War Pensions Agency also attended a meeting at which it was agreed that the issue would be examined seriously. Does the Minister agree that a large proportion of the illnesses of the Gulf War veterans relates to post traumatic stress disorder or chronic fatigue syndrome and that they are being picked out? Such people are not being given a medical examination. If on a particular day they are regarded as being fit enough to walk 100 yards or to make a cup of tea, their DLA is taken away. That has affected some 60 people in Scotland and some 40 people in Northern Ireland. I do not know how

1249
many there are in England. A number of Gulf War veterans, who have served their country, are now having their benefits taken away.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the noble Countess be kind enough to give me the details of the cases which she has raised? One cannot talk about individual cases. A possible explanation for people losing disability living allowance is that they are simultaneously receiving a constant attendance allowance, which they are entitled to claim with 80 per cent. capacity. That is almost twice as generous as the higher care element of DLA. Duplicate payments have been discovered: that is, people receiving both CAA and DLA. Clearly, we do not pay twice for the same disability. If they are the cases to which the noble Countess is referring we shall be happy to check that no further errors remain in our system.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the figure of 6,000 was widely quoted in the weekend newspapers as being the number of people suffering from Gulf War illnesses. Can the Minister confirm that that figure is known to her department?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is not the figure of which I am aware. I am aware that approximately 425 claims for war pensions have been received in respect of Gulf War-related illness. Of those, 219 have been awarded and only 27 have been rejected—that is less than 6 per cent. of the total. The rest are being processed. I asked why those 27 had been rejected and was told that either no disablement had been found or that the Secretary of State had determined that the disability was not attributable to service. Therefore, of all the Gulf War veterans claiming for Gulf War related illnesses, only 27 have had their claims rejected. I am assured that those rejections were well founded.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, what would be case if on medical advice a person takes extended bed rest? I am thinking of people suffering from ME and women with a history of miscarriages who may be advised by their doctors to take extended bed rest. Would such people be eligible for disability living allowance?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not aware of any women taking bed rest as a result of pregnancy who were Gulf War veterans.

Saudi Arabia: Detention Practice
2.59 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to ensure that practice in Saudi Arabian places of detention is examined at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Saudi Arabia will be considered under the confidential
1250
1503 procedure of the UN Commission on Human Rights. We would expect practice in places of detention to be among the subjects raised by non-governmental human rights organisations.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister had time to glance at the report, Torture in Saudi Arabia: No Protection, No Redress, which is to be published tomorrow? I understand that a copy was sent to her. It illustrates that torture and ill treatment in places of detention in Saudi Arabia are widespread and persistent. Is that not caused partly by the practice of holding people incommunicado for long periods before they are brought to trial? Will that matter also be raised with the UN Commission on Human Rights? Does the Minister believe that, in view of that evidence, it would be useful for the UN rapporteur on torture to visit Saudi Arabia to see whether, in collaboration with the government of that country, he can help in eradicating the causes of torture?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have glanced at the report to which the noble Lord referred and which is to be published tomorrow, although as yet I have not been able to study it very thoroughly. Her Majesty's Government condemn unequivocally the practice of torture wherever it occurs. We shall certainly study that report in greater detail and look carefully at its recommendations.
We continue to be concerned about reports from Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations of torture in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, in his Question the noble Lord refers to holding individuals incommunicado in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, the very particular form of Sharia courts is one which is very different from our own system. Under our system we would find holding people incommunicado extremely difficult and when that occurs we make representations to the authorities on a consular basis to the Saudi Arabian authorities. Her Majesty's Government have supported the noble Lord on previous occasions in relation to the UN rapporteur, and it is regrettable that the UN rapporteur is not welcome in Saudi Arabia. We hope that our representations on a wide number of issues will also include that matter.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, while I recognise the right of states to bring to justice those convicted or accused of recognised criminal offences, what specific policy initiatives are the Government taking in line with their ethical foreign policy to encourage the access of human rights monitors, including Amnesty International, into Saudi Arabia to observe its judicial system?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have done what we can to encourage the Saudi Government on this issue. Our embassy in Riyadh raised this matter on 31st May and on 16th November. We stressed the public and parliamentary concern felt in this country in relation to those issues. Torture was discussed specifically, as was our wish to see greater freedom for individuals to practice non-Moslem

1251
worship. My right honourable friend Mr. Derek Fatchett has also discussed those matters with the Saudi ambassador in London and I have had occasion to raise some of those issues on a consular basis with the Saudi ambassador in relation to particular cases of British individuals in detention in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we have raised this matter on a number of occasions and in different fora.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, while we recognise the importance of Saudi Arabia to British economic interests, particularly as a country to which we export a great many arms, does the Minister recall the series of lectures which Sir Anthony Parsons gave in 1980-81 on our failure to foresee the likelihood of a collapse of the Iran Government and regime and the adverse consequences to Britain of having become over-committed to the Shah? Are the Government conscious of the internal tensions within Saudi Arabia and the need to conduct a very delicate foreign policy relationship with that regime for much the same reason?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are very conscious of the points which the noble Lord rightly makes. Of course there is an important economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, but there are also very important human rights issues at stake. We engaged the Saudis in confidential dialogue on a full range of human rights issues, including that relating to torture, which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised in his Question. We welcome the fact that the Saudi Government have acceded to the UN convention on torture. That is a delicate matter. It does not mean that we should not address it robustly but we must address it in the delicate way which the noble Lord has indicated if we are to achieve any results rather than just make loud noises in the right places. That is not the point. The point is that we should make a difference.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, of course there is a need for delicacy, which is always prayed in aid as an excuse for doing nothing. But does not the Minister agree that Saudi Arabia is not exempt from the Foreign Office mission statement goal that the Government will seek to promote the human rights and democracy which we demand for ourselves, and that that includes immunity from torture and detention without trial as well as the other human rights and freedoms which are similarly lacking in Saudi Arabia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I should be most alarmed if anything that I have said to your Lordships' House had led your Lordships to believe that the Government in any way take a different view from the view that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has expressed. My remarks about delicacy were merely that the Government must consider the most effective way in which to argue human rights issues where there
1252
are different cultures and different religious practices and observation, and where the attitudes towards human rights are very different from our own.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Convention and the First Protocol]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert?—
("( ) The main purpose of this Act is to provide effective remedies for violation of the Convention rights within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that in Committee the subject matter, as well as the principle of this amendment, was discussed and from all sides of the Committee there appeared to be support for the proposition, if this were brought forward on Report, that it is a good thing from a legislative point of view to have the purpose of the Act set forth in summary form. I hope that the House will agree that that summary is correctly contained in the amendment.
Perhaps I may anticipate the amendment to Amendment No. 1, which I believe may be moved. The principle must be to summarise the main purposes of an Act and not to include in that summary exceptions that there may be or other provisions which are of a fairly minor character compared with the main objects of the Bill. Having said that, I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 2, after ("remedies") insert ("subject to exemption on grounds of religious law and practice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first perhaps disagree with my noble friend in that he said that the matters which I am about to raise are of minor importance. I believe that they are matters of major importance. Secondly, I should declare an interest in the sense that I am a practising member of the Church of England; I am and have been for many years a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses of Parliament; and I should further add that I do not regard this as a party issue. This is an issue for the House rather than a party political matter.
I have general support for the amendment moved by my noble friend. There is no doubt that a general expression of the content of a Bill is desirable. Therefore, I have no quarrel with my noble friend in that regard. But the expression "effective remedies" caught my eye because the nub of the problem go forward—is that adherence to a religious faith is unlike membership of any other organisation. It is not like joining the MCC or, indeed, the Labour or Conservative parties. Those who join that religious faith recognise a higher authority that under usual procedures—and I shall come to those in a minute—can declare what should be the rules of that particular club.
In Committee my noble and learned friend quite clearly stated that if a church or a religious body has any functions of a public nature, it qualifies as a public authority under the Bill. He went on to say that certain acts by public authorities were covered by Clause 6(5) of the Bill (as it then was) and that:
"In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(c) if the nature of the act is private".
From my noble and learned friend's remarks, there is no doubt that the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, both Churches by law established—whatever that may mean; and I am sometimes in some doubt about it—have in many of their functions actions and activities of a public nature. Therefore, if my noble and learned friend is to be taken at his word, as he should be, they would undoubtedly qualify as public authorities under the Bill.
That may arguably be true of other religious faiths, but I cannot speak—and, indeed, would not wish to—for other religious faiths. I would certainly not wish to speak for the Church of Scotland as there will be others much more qualified than myself to do so. However, I believe that I can argue for the Church of England. There is undoubtedly a conflict between Article 9 and Article 14 of the convention when it comes to amendment of the canon law of the Church of England. It may well be that there is an argument about that for other religious faiths and, when I turn to practice, it is possible that that will also be the case. But certainly so far as concerns the Church of England, it has been well established under the law that the procedures for changing the canon law of the Church (which is the religious law governing it) under the 1919 Act fall under the process of measures which are produced through the synodical process at present. They come to your Lordships' House and another place to be approved or disapproved having been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which noble Lords will know is a joint committee of both Houses, with the remit of declaring whether or not such a measure is expedient.
Perhaps I may give the House just one example. The conflict arose in a recent measure on the ordination of women, where the measure amending the canon law of the Church of England specifically excluded women from becoming bishops. As I understand it, and on any reasonable definition of Article 14, that would be considered to be discriminatory. But under Article 9 there is the freedom to practise religion in whatever way anyone feels is appropriate to conscience.
In my view, it would be absurd if the whole structure of the synodical relationship as regards the Synod, the Church of England and Parliament became disrupted by the fast-track procedure at present in the Bill. I am glad to have the assurance that the fast-track procedure, if your Lordships accept forthcoming amendments, will not apply to measures of the Church of England. Again, it is not for me to pronounce what may happen in the Church of Scotland.
However, that does not necessarily solve the fundamental problem; namely, that a measure, if so declared by a higher court—to use the words of the
1254
Bill—and deemed to be contrary to Article 14 of the convention, can be replaced by another measure which, presumably, if the Synod so decides, would be in accordance with the convention on human rights now incorporated into UK law. But what happens if the Synod in its wisdom decides that it does not want to conform to what the higher court has decided? There is still the problem of a conflict between Articles 9 and 14 of the convention.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for long, so I turn now to the question of practice. As noble Lords will be aware, in the Church of England a number of priests decided that, although they would not leave the Church of England as a result of the ordination of women measure, they would seek alternative episcopal authority. So that was arranged. It is an unhappy compromise but, nevertheless, one that was accepted by the House of Bishops and the Church of England in general.
Clearly, any priest who performs an act of a public nature, which is a marriage or a burial, and decides that he cannot accept that the act is performed by a woman priest, is in contravention of Article 14 of the convention. But, on the other hand, he is working according to Article 9 of the convention. Having said that, I leave aside the whole question of other Churches; for example, the Roman Catholic Church where the canon law in fact prohibits the ordination of women to the priesthood. What happens in the case where those provisions of religious law and practice of the Churches are challenged by the courts and a higher court decides that they are contrary to the convention which is now part of UK law?
I wish to be supportive of the Government because, in the first place, basically I support my noble friend in his amendment. I support the idea of the convention being put into UK law. However, I am afraid that I have to part company with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her amendment which she will move later because I do not believe that charities should be exempt from the convention. However, I make this suggestion to the Government. I believe that there are solutions. First—and I believe that this will happen—fast-track procedures for amendment of Church of England measures or Church of Scotland legislation should be ruled out. Secondly, measures can only be amended by other measures going through the normal synodical process.
That is the minor problem. The major problem is that there must be some way of indicating to the courts, in whatever way appropriate, that Parliament intends that Article 9(1)—that is, the freedom of conscience of "everyone"—should, if challenged, take precedence over Article 14 which is the anti-discrimination article. If my noble and learned friend could just move that little pace further, I, at least, would be much happier. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I rise to oppose Amendment No. 2. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has declared his interest in the Church of England. I should perhaps declare my interest as

1255
chairman of the all-party humanists group, although I do not speak on behalf of that group which has not discussed the issue.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to this extent. This is not a minor matter, but one of major importance. The amendment put forward is of a sweeping nature and refers to remedies,
"subject to exemption on grounds of religious law and practice".
That goes far wider than the amendment introduced by the noble Lord. It is a blanket exclusion from the provisions of the Bill on the grounds of religious law and practice.
What is religious law and practice? The meaning is not defined in the Bill, nor so far as I am aware is it defined anywhere else. I do not argue in any sense that there should be any infringement of the rights of people to practise religion of whatever kind they wish to follow. That has never been my position. I believe in the inclusion of people of religion in the civic affairs of our country. However, I object to the way in which the Church seeks to exclude itself from the Human Rights Bill. Apart from matters of practice—I believe that that was mentioned today—for the life of me I cannot think of any reason that any Church should seek to exclude itself from the upholding of human rights. It may seem paradoxical, but I argue that one of the main functions of religion is to uphold human rights. Therefore to pass such a wide amendment would lead us into grave difficulties.
I refer to what I call the peculiar religions such as the so-called Moonies—they may take offence at that—which declare themselves to be religions. Some of their practices undoubtedly are totally against the spirit and practice of this legislation. Would such religions be able to creep in under the amendment, and say, "The law can't touch us in our activities because we are excluded"? The issue needs to be looked at closely. For the House to exclude religion on such wide grounds would be extremely dangerous and highly damaging, not just to the Bill, but to the fabric of our society.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. A purpose clause is not always appropriate, but there was general agreement in Committee that this was a case where a purpose clause would be of advantage. There was general approval of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had framed the purpose clause which is now put forward again.
I desire to intervene only on two points. The first is in relation to what service a purpose clause is for. It is an aid to interpretation; and it is nothing else. Your Lordships have heard two speeches cogently argued and, if I may say so, deeply impressive. After hearing them, no one would minimise the importance of the considerations which they raise, even if one had been inclined to do so before.
However, the arguments relate to one amendment, or perhaps more than one, which will be moved later by the noble Baroness, Lady Young; and perhaps to one to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in relation to
1256
the Church of Scotland. As one who was formerly concerned on many occasions with statutory interpretation, I can only say that if one were to start inscribing exceptions into a purpose clause one would only confuse the court. The function of a purpose clause, when it is appropriate, is to give a general guidance to the general spirit of a Bill—an Act of Parliament as it becomes. It is not in the least designed to fish out this or that exception. To do that not only serves no useful purpose but will derogate from the value of any purpose clause.
There is only one other thing I should like to add: it is in relation to the last amendment on the Marshalled List, and the last in the list of groupings. I refer to the amendment to the Title. Frequently a Title can serve a useful and valuable purpose. Instead of or with a purpose clause, it can indicate to the court of interpretation the overriding force impelling the Act of Parliament. The two are not mutually exclusive. They may be cumulative. Therefore I can support wholeheartedly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, without anticipating in any way by way of derogation the amendment that I shall move in due course in relation to the Title.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, 1 would have supported the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, subject to a hit of tightening up of the drafting—but that is neither here nor there—if I could have supported Amendment No. I. But I cannot. It is a purpose clause. I stand four square behind the recommendations of the Renton committee on purpose clauses, at paragraphs 11.6 to 11.18 on pages 62 and 63 of the report. These appear under the heading, Aids to Understanding. It is stated quite clearly in the report that they should not be used as a mere manifesto incorporation—in this case to reflect page 35 of the Labour manifesto—to enforce human rights in our courts. That is clearly the main purpose of the Bill. Everyone knows that. It is a tightly crafted Bill, and no aid to understanding or construction would be afforded by the introduction of a purpose clause.
I accept the view of the report. The report states that it is not appropriate to introduce a purpose clause. It is suggested that it is certainly not appropriate to introduce a purpose clause at the outset of any stage of the Bill where amendments are tabled which, if carried, could afford exceptions to the main purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to that in outline and I need not make the point again. I agree with him.
As in the case of the Long Title, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred, the purpose clause should be postponed to the end of the Bill, where amendments to the Title are considered. However, as yet no such procedure has evolved. Such procedure may not have evolved because it is not often that your Lordships' House introduces purpose clauses. It is stated clearly in the report that these clauses should he used only as an aid to,
"better understanding of the legislative intention",
(as to which there is no question here), to resolve doubts and ambiguities (as to which there are none), and to limit or clarify the scope and effect of legislation. This

1257
amendment does not seek to limit the scope of legislation. There is no obscurity in the drafting of the Bill which warrants clarification. For those reasons, based on the Renton report, which I accept, I oppose Amendment No. 1.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 1, standing also in my name, and explain why I oppose Amendment No. 2 as an amendment to it. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, perhaps I may begin by explaining why I believe the noble Lord is mistaken about the Renton report, and also as to the reasons why this is a valuable provision. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his place. The Renton report made one exception to the paragraphs to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred. The report stated that there is one circumstance in which a purpose clause should be used; namely, where a Bill seeks to give effect to an international treaty obligation. That is exemplified by the present Bill.
Why is that the case? It is because there is a discrepancy between what was stated in the White Paper both by the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government as a whole, and statements by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the course of debate, which need to be clarified. It may be that they can be clarified when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies, in which case the need for this clause may be reconsidered.
Perhaps I may explain the discrepancy. In his preface to the White Paper the Prime Minister said:
"We are committed to a comprehensive programme of constitutional reform … The elements are well-known … new rights based on bringing the European Convention … into United Kingdom law".
The introduction and summary stated:
"The Government has a Manifesto commitment to introduce legislation to incorporate"—
I emphasise the word "incorporate"—
"the European Human Rights Convention into United Kingdom law. The Queen's speech … announced that the Government would bring forward a Bill for this purpose",
that is to say, for the purpose of incorporating convention rights into domestic law.
Paragraph 1.19 of the White Paper states:
"to make more directly accessible the rights which the British people already enjoy under the convention. In other words, to bring those rights home".
All that is very plain—although not plainly stated on the face of the Bill.
In Committee, however, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated:
"convention rights will not … in themselves become part of … substantive domestic law".—[Official Report, 18/11/97; col. 508.]
It is very important to assist the courts and members of the public to know whether, as the White Paper states, the purpose of the Bill is to provide effective remedies to the violation of convention rights by incorporating convention rights into domestic law. I hope, and believe,
1258
that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to confirm that the main purpose is indeed to provide effective remedies for violation of convention rights. That is what is meant by bringing convention rights home.
Article 2 of the convention obliges the United Kingdom to secure convention rights for everyone within the jurisdiction of this country; and Article 13 obliges the UK to provide effective domestic remedies. It has not been argued in previous debates either by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that there is any practical objection to a purpose clause of this kind. For those reasons, I very much hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
I turn briefly to the amendment to the purpose clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. With great respect to the noble Lord, this amendment is not at all well-conceived. First, it is quite clear from the case law under the European Human Rights Convention that Article 9—the religious freedom provision of the convention—gives ample scope for canon law making, for the ordination of women, for all the practices, procedures, rituals and dogmas of the established Churches, and indeed, other religions.
One of the most dramatic examples occurred in a case in which I was involved in this country, but not in Strasbourg; namely, the Salman Rushdie case. As noble Lords will remember, an attempt was made to extend the law of blasphemy to cover not only the Anglican faith and Christianity but also Islam. It was argued successfully in the English courts, using the convention, that to extend the law in that way would be to set one religion against another and would be divisive, and that any suggestion of discrimination was misconceived. The European Commission of Human Rights agreed with that argument, which had been accepted by the Divisional Court, and threw out a challenge based upon Article 14 by some fundamentalist Moslems who sought to challenge discrimination, and found the case to be manifestly ill-founded. The kind of problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would simply not arise under the convention in a proper case in this country. Were they to be raised I am confident that no British court would be likely to find that any of those established practices could not pass muster under Article 14—the non-discrimination guarantee—and Article 9.
However, I agree with the noble Lord's remark that there are some religions, whether real or supposed, which may violate basic human rights and freedoms; and it would be quite wrong in principle, especially in a purpose clause but also in the body of the Bill, to carve out an exception, or immunity, when no such immunity exists under the European Convention itself. We cannot use the Bill to diminish the rights given by the convention by imposing immunities on particular interest groups. Therefore, I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am in favour of the main amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,

1259
and opposed to the amendment to it moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. With deep respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I believe he has drawn the wrong conclusions from the recommendations of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman.
We were very anxious in making all of our recommendations that Acts of Parliament should be understood not only by lawyers—in fact, better understood than lawyers are sometimes capable of doing because of the ambiguities so often found in legislation—but clearly understood also by all the users of legislation and all those who were subject to it or who needed to enforce it as laymen. That was the main reason underlying our desire to declare the intention of Parliament so far as possible in general terms through purpose clauses, statements of principle and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, by giving aid to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament. It was with those thoughts in mind that we recommended purpose clauses—I hope not in too limited a way, although looking back over the many years since we reported we might have put the matter forward in a more general way.
In relation to the Bill, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would be very helpful Clause 1 goes straight into a definition of the convention rights. Surely it would help users of the statute to be told at the outset what is set out in Amendment No. 1. In particular, and with deep respect to him, I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that purpose clauses should come at or towards the end of a Bill. Clearly their value comes if they are put at the beginning. All such purpose clauses that I can remember over many years in parliament and in your Lordships' House have come at the beginning of a Bill or the beginning of a part of a Bill. Sometimes it is necessary to have more than one purpose clause in a Bill which is widespread in effect and has several different parts dealing with different matters. So far as this Bill is concerned, I believe it is a valuable way of starting the Bill and I warmly support it.
I now come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I have not always agreed with him but I have always respected his sincerity, and do so today. He referred us to Articles 9 and 14 of the convention, which are set out in the schedule. It seems to me that both those articles give protection to religious attitudes in a very broad way. I do not propose to read them because they have already been referred to by the noble Lord; but, if noble Lords will be kind enough to refresh their memories of the contents of those two articles, they will see that freedom of thought and various other matters, including religion, are set out. It is not just a Christian religion; any established religion would benefit in the same way in our courts when the convention comes to be applied in them.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raised one matter which, I confess, took me a little by surprise, regarding the ordination of women. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response on that point. We have a Sex Discrimination Act, but in all the discussions that took place in the Church of England on the
1260
ordination of women I never heard the Sex Discrimination Act invoked. Indeed, in relation to the law and practice of the Church of England—of which I am a member—I wonder whether it has any bearing.
We have had a valuable discussion and I do not propose to trouble your Lordships further, except to say—I hope I am not out of order in doing so—that at about eight o'clock on Wednesday evening I am committed to opening a debate on purpose clauses and statements of principle.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that I do not know what the Renton Committee intended but that I quoted verbatim from its report? Secondly, of course I realise that purpose clauses come at the beginning of a statute. What I was suggesting—and my noble friend misunderstood because I put it badly—was that they should be discussed at the end with the Long Title because the Bill might be amended during the course of discussion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not suggest that my noble friend had misquoted the report of our committee; I merely said that I thought he had drawn the wrong conclusions from it, and I stand by that.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I believe that I am the only speaker so far who is likely to have to construe this Bill. Your Lordships are being asked to consider what is possibly the most important constitutional Bill for some time. I do not believe that our time is usefully spent discussing the technicalities of statutory interpretation. Speaking purely for myself, the first amendment seems to clarify what is self-evident anyway; it does no harm and may do good. As to the religious amendments, those are matters which occur later in the Bill. May we please get on with the substance of this important Bill and not discuss minor technicalities?
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly before we move on. In the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, we are discussing matters to which we shall return in later amendments, but I should like to make two brief responses. To the noble Lord who spoke after the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I should like to say that of course the Churches are deeply supportive of the human rights movement and of this Bill, and I shall say more about that in a moment. However, as the noble Lord. Lord Williams of Elvel, made clear, there are times when there is a conflict between rights.
The ordination of women was mentioned both by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. My understanding is that when that measure was introduced an exemption was obtained for it from the Sex Discrimination Act. There were clauses in the measure which required that exemption, notably the clauses that allowed parishes not to receive the ministrations of a woman ordained priest.

1261
In relation to the more general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who referred to the Church of England as "by law established", my understanding, as far as I have any of that particular phrase, is that it does not mean that the Church of England is founded by law or upon law—it was founded by Jesus Christ—but is by law given certain responsibilities, such as the responsibility, within certain constraints, to marry any who in the parish present themselves for marriage, and certain opportunities, such as the opportunity of bishops to be present and to speak in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord referred to the difficulty that might be raised by canon law being in some ways subject to this Bill. This matter has been raised by the General Synod and was discussed in its standing committee, where I strongly made the point that by history the Church of England had been given certain freedoms in relation to law and that for this Bill to take those freedoms back, as it seemed to be doing, was to reverse history and to put the Church of England in a difficult position. My understanding is that the Government have heard that comment from the Church of England and will respond to it in due course. We await that response with great interest.
We shall return to the remaining issues, which are of considerable importance, on later amendments.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendment No. 2. It was formerly grouped with Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 53, 70 and 75, but they are now grouped separately; I therefore do not attend to those amendments but to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
Dealing first with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the Government have reflected carefully on this matter since Committee stage but continue to believe that there is nothing to be gained by including a statement of purpose in the Bill, as the amendment seeks to do. We believe that the purpose of the Bill can be readily understood from the scheme of the Bill, which is well understood, as was demonstrated in Committee. The Bill provides a clear and coherent scheme by which the convention rights are to be given further effect in our domestic law. The purpose of the Bill is obvious: it is to enable convention rights to be asserted directly in our domestic courts. The medium of achieving that is, among others, Clause 3, the interpretative principle that, so far as possible, the courts are to construe primary legislation and subordinate legislation compatibly with convention rights. I agree also with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that in any event it is not appropriate to have an exception in a purpose clause.
I turn now to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The more appropriate place in your Lordships' discussions today for considering these matters is no doubt when we come to consider the amendments to Clause 6 and, in particular, Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 26, 27 and 72. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel looked ahead to Amendments Nos. 40
1262
to 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. They impose limits upon remedial orders and address the question of Church Measures. That perhaps is the appropriate stage at which to consider in detail those questions.
As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel explained, his amendment is not about Article 13 or the provision of remedies; it is about the implications of the Bill for the Churches. I do not want to say a great deal about that in the debate on these amendments because we shall be debating those subjects in some detail later.
Looking first at the detail of my noble friend's amendment, it appears to me that the declaratory statement inserted by the amendment about the purpose of the Bill is not to apply where religious law and institutions are concerned. However, because the noble Lord has not tabled any amendments giving substantive effect to his exemption, his amendment to Amendment No. 1 does not achieve anything, unless it is intended to cross-refer to the provisions which would be inserted in the Bill if the amendments tabled to Clause 6 by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others were to be carried. It would not affect the position in the Bill where the Churches, to the extent that they are a public authority, are subject to the requirement to comply with convention rights.
More generally, the Bill provides for a wide interpretation of the term "public authority" because we want to provide as wide a protection as possible for the human rights of individuals against an abuse of those rights. There is an exemption for Parliament so as to protect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty; but nothing in the proceedings on this Bill has so far convinced us that it would be right to create any further exemptions. We must remember that the purpose of the Bill is to enhance the basic human rights of the people of this country. The idea that those rights should not be available in matters of concern to the Church is one to which I, and no doubt others, find it hard to subscribe. However, we shall be debating those matters in more detail later and therefore I confine myself to those observations at this stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for what he said. No doubt he will be more forthcoming when the further amendments he mentioned are debated later on.
I wish to make only one point. If the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is right—and I am sure that he is right—about the jurisprudence in the European Court of Human Rights, particularly the affairs of Salman Rushdie and others; if that jurisprudence is to be followed by the UK courts and if my noble and learned friend could declare that in some form or other, then many of my worries would be removed. No doubt my noble and learned friend will address that subject when we debate the amendments to which we shall come later this evening. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1263
Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, little did I think when I tabled Amendment No. 1 that 49 minutes of your Lordships' time would be devoted to it. I am duly flattered, but nevertheless feel that I can serve your Lordships best by saying that I shall read the learned speeches that have been made on canon law, ecclesiastical law, on women and on bishops with the utmost care before deciding what I should do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, Amendment No. 1 negatived.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("l2 and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to find myself moving this amendment. I believed that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was to move it and I shall leave to him the main explanation of it. He is the leading expert on jurisprudence in the European Court of Human Rights.
Amendment No. 3 concerns Article 13, which is left out of the schedule setting out the articles which apply. Indeed, that is reflected in Clause 1. Amendment No. 3 will make the reference to the articles run from 1, with no exception at the end of 12, straight on through to Article 18.
In addition, I need say only this. There is a consequential amendment to the schedule, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, attached his name to that amendment. Therefore, presumably he also supports Amendment No. 3 or Amendment No. 5 which says the same thing in a slightly different way.
There is an alternative. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner tabled Amendment No. 33 which in effect reproduces the force of Article 13 and incorporates it into the body of the Bill. I shall have to leave him to say how he wants that treated. The course I prefer and which I am now following is the simpler one; namely, making Article 13 also part of the schedule to the Bill. The form is simpler in Amendment No. 3 than in Amendment No. 5. They have precisely the same effect, but on the ground of simplicity Amendment No. 3 may be preferred.
I wish to make one last point. I am leaving the main argument to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and he ordinarily has no right to speak again at the end of the debate. The Minister has the last word, subject to my being formally entitled to reply to the debate. I hope your Lordships will give the noble Lord, Lord Lester, leave to speak a second time in reply to the debate on the understanding that I shall not myself exercise the right to do so. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for what he has said. I would like to speak in support of Amendment No. 3, which stands in my name, and also to the other amendments that are grouped, Amendments Nos. 5, 33 and 70.
1264
Amendment No. 5 is not so neatly and simply expressed as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and would certainly not need to be further considered were Amendment No. 3 to be accepted. Amendment No. 33 is not in my name, it is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It seeks in a different way to achieve the same result. Amendment No. 70 is consequential.
I can deal with the matter briefly because it was debated fairly fully in Committee. It is clear from its place in the convention that Article 13 is one of the rights guaranteed by the states parties to the convention. It is also clear that a breach of Article 13 can be the subject of a complaint on the international plane under Article 25 of the convention.
To take the most recent example, in the Chahal case the United Kingdom was found to have breached Article 13 separately in a judgment of the European Court of 15th November 1996. That made it necessary for Parliament to enact special immigration appeals legislation. The European Court observed in Chahal that Article 13:
"guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of this article is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief'.
So the European Court has made it quite clear that Article 13 imposes binding obligations on the United Kingdom to provide effective national remedies for arguable breaches of the convention. That is why it is very important that our courts do not consider cases under this Bill in blinkers and why they are permitted to look at all relevant provisions of the cnvention, including Article 13. They already do so even though the convention has not been domesticated.
I give two examples. In the Esther Rantzen case and the Elton John case, in considering how it should exercise its discretion to interfere with excessive damages awards in libel cases under Section 8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act, the English Court of Appeal indicated that it had regard to Article 13 and the obligation on it to ensure effective remedies in relation to the free speech guaranteed in Article 10.
To take another example, in a case called ex parte Khan last year two Law Lords of the Appellate Committee again expressly referred to their obligations as a court under Article 13. It is therefore a curious gap, and in my view one of the only three imperfections in this otherwise brilliant Bill, that when one comes to look at the very first part of the Bill, one finds reference made to Articles 2 to 12 as provisions at which the courts can look, and then it leaps from 12 to 14 leaving out Article 13.
Two different explanations for this omission have been given by Ministers so far in the course of debates. One given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was that it is not necessary because the Bill is giving effect to Article 13 by providing effective domestic remedies. The other answer, given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, was to indicate some

1265
anxiety in government circles that if Article 13 were to be incorporated into our law this might lead our courts to be excessively creative in fashioning new remedies in proceedings under the Bill. But Amendment No. 3 is not directly incorporating Article 13. What it does is to permit our courts to have regard to Article 13. I have no objection to incorporating Article 13. I do not believe our courts would stray as a result, but I think it is objectionable to exclude Article 13 altogether from the matters to be taken into account by the court. It would be quite wrong for there to be a gap between what is enacted by this Bill and our international obligations under the convention, and by excluding Article 13 altogether one would be only partially incorporating the convention and not giving full effect to all its provisions.
I apologise for taking so long to try to explain the matter as I see it but it is quite an important matter and there are some outside this House who harbour all kinds of unworthy suspicions about machiavellian reasons for excluding Article 13. I do not share any of those doubts but I believe it is important that Article 13 should be one of the provisions in Section 2 of the convention to which the courts can have regard.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this group of amendments and other amendments which will follow to my mind raise a very important question of principle. We are purporting to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into the jurisdiction of our own courts. In doing so we should not pick and choose as to which articles of the convention we think should apply and which should not. But in relation to Article 13, set out in Amendment No. 70, we have to bear in mind that it does not state rights; it states an obligation upon persons acting in an official capacity. It has that limitation.
It so happens that Clause 6 of the Bill deals with that very matter. So to my mind, rightly or wrongly, the Government were justified in avoiding repetition by omitting the reference to Article 13. If we turn to Clause 6, under the heading Public authorities, we see in subsection (1):
"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the convention rights".
Although the wording is slightly different in Article 13, that conveys the same message and therefore, although I am strongly opposed to our varying the terms of the Convention on Human Rights, I think that on this particular matter, to avoid repetition or conflict, the Government would be justified in inserting Clause 6 and omitting Article 13.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for giving us another opportunity to consider a set of amendments which relate essentially to Article 13 and the provision of remedies. All of this was debated in some detail in Committee. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the
1266
decision not expressly to include Article 13. He referred to Clause 6 of the Bill. I would refer also to Clause 8, which provides:
"In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its jurisdiction as it considers just and appropriate".
Our courts are rich in remedies and have every freedom under Clause 8.
No one supporting the amendment has suggested any respect in which the Bill is deficient in providing effective remedies to those who have been victims of an unlawful act. That is what determines it for me. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that there may be some elsewhere who harbour suspicions that the Government must have some secret or hidden motive for rejecting the amendments. If they do, I do not know what they are. The Bill has been constructed in a way that affords ample protection for individuals' rights under the convention. We have adopted an intentionally wide definition of public authority under Clause 6, and Clause 8(1), which I have already read, gives the courts ample scope for doing justice when unlawful acts are committed. I would say that these are measures of a government determined to deliver a strong form of incorporation, not a government fighting shy of enhancing our citizens' rights.
Our objection is that the amendments add nothing to the scheme in the Bill. On the contrary, the only effect they could have is to disturb the carefully crafted structure of the Bill in some unforeseen way. I do not know what the courts would make of amendments which, on the face of it, contain nothing new. I therefore suggest that the amendments would either cause confusion or uncertainty. In our judgment, the Bill as it stands does the job that we wish it to do and we see no advantages—only disadvantages—in taking up any of the amendments relating to Article 13 or the provision of remedies. I therefore urge noble Lords who have supported the amendments to withdraw them.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he can help on one matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to an observation which my noble and learned friend made during the Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that,
"to incorporate expressly Article 13 may lead to the courts fashioning remedies about which we know nothing other than the Clause 8 remedies which we regard as sufficient and clear".—[Official Report, 18/11/97: col. 477.]
Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can identify what the remedies with which he is concerned might be and also how they might lawfully be fashioned in view of the terms of Clause 8, to which I shall seek at a later stage to move an amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have not the least idea what the remedies the courts might develop outside Clause 8 could be if Article 13 was included. The noble and learned Lord has really made my point for me. Clause 8(1) is of the widest amplitude. No one is

1267
contending that it will not do the job. When we have challenged the proponents of the amendment on a number of occasions in Committee to say how Clause 8 might not do the job, they have been unable to offer a single example. Therefore, the argument is all one way. What we have done is sufficient.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is quite clear from the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, may not transfer his right of reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because the latter has already spoken and is prohibited by Standing Order 28 from speaking twice.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I understood the rule of order to be that a noble Lord could speak twice at the Report stage provided he was given leave to do so. That is what I referred to in inviting the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to ask for leave to speak again by sacrificing my right to speak again.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. If I did, with the leave of the House, speak again, it would be to say one sentence. However, it might not be the sentence that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would himself speak. Therefore, I am not sure what is the appropriate course. If I were given leave, what I would say is that I am satisfied by the Lord Chancellor's assurance that Clause 8 is of the widest amplitude.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sorry but the position is very clear. The Companion states:
"Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down; except that, where the Minister wishes to speak early".
4.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it seems to me, however reluctantly, that it falls to me to say the final words. I desire only to say this. Absolutely nothing is to be lost by including Article 13. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor obviously thinks that he has served all the purposes of Article 13 in the Bill, which in his view is inviolate from envious hands being laid upon it. It may be so. There is a famous example in legislative history when a most momentous Act was passed bringing together the systems of equity and the systems of common law which had previously been disparately administered and considered. The Bill, which became the Judicature Act 1875, set out various respects in which the rules of equity and the rules of common law had diverged and resolved them in favour of equity. But there is one final paragraph, which said:
"In the event of any further divergence, the rules of equity shall prevail".
No one at that time could think of any further divergence, just as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can think of no way in which his Bill is defective in carrying out the purposes of Article 13.
Oddly enough, some time after the 1875 Act, a discrepancy emerged which nobody thought of at the time. It fell to be decided by the provision to which I
1268
have just referred. So however certain my noble and learned friend may be that he has covered every possible contingency for which Article 13 might call, he may have been mistaken. In another connection at an earlier stage, I quoted the famous words of Oliver Cromwell to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and I venture to repeat them at this stage. I hope that it will not be necessary to do so again later. The words that Cromwell used to the General Assembly were,
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, [to consider that] you may be mistaken".
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Interpretation of Convention rights]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("right") to end of line 4 and insert ("shall be hound by any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, and must take into account any—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am tempted to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to move this amendment for me, so eloquently has he just spoken. I tabled this amendment at Committee stage and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor very kindly said that he would go away and think about it. I do not see any accommodating amendment at Report stage, so I assume that he has decided against me.
The reason that I have tabled this amendment is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, by requiring our own judges only to take account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and not to be bound by it, we would be incorporating the substance of the convention, but not its jurisprudence. The effect would be to make the incorporation of the convention a domestic Bill of human rights. Our own judges could range over its interpretation without the discipline of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
One of the consequences would be that a litigant, dissatisfied, or only partially satisfied, by the judgment of our courts, could go off to the European Court of Human Rights and obtain a judgment which is more favourable than he or she received domestically. What will the Government's reaction be to that decision in those circumstances? Under the terms of the convention, if the European Court of Human Rights decides that the law of the United Kingdom falls short in some way or other of the convention, it is bound to alter its legislation to reflect that judgment. Do the Government continue to consider themselves under such an obligation? If they do incorporate the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in those circumstances, what do they believe the attitude of our own domestic courts will be? I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this amendment was fully debated at Committee stage. Briefly, my reasons for opposing it can be summarised in this way. First, the only judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that are strictly binding on this country are in cases involving the United Kingdom directly. In international law we are not bound by any

1269
other judgments. Therefore, very boringly and technically, the amendment is too wide in any event in suggesting that our courts should be bound by any judgment because that would be to go further than the European Convention itself requires.
Secondly—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not mind a mild tease about this—it is a little strange for his party, which is not noted for its passionate enthusiasm for the European dimension to be brought home to this country, to be more European than the convention itself requires. It certainly does not require our courts to be slavishly bound by the judgments of the European Court.
Thirdly, if our courts get it wrong and there is a mismatch between what they decide and what the convention requires, the aggrieved individual can always go to Strasbourg. Fourthly—and I hope I say this diplomatically and with respect—the European Court of Human Rights is growing larger and larger, having, I believe, up to 40 judges who come from very diverse backgrounds and from countries in eastern, central and western Europe. Therefore this enormous court will find itself having great difficulty in developing consistent principles of law. There will be the danger of variable geometry developing in the human fights area. I hope that I will never be accused of undue chauvinism, but, speaking for myself, I believe that our judges will be able to give a lead to Strasbourg in developing jurisprudence under the convention. I would not like to fetter them in any way. It seems to me sufficient to require them to have regard to Strasbourg case law, but not to be bound by it as though it were a question of stare decisis under our domestic law.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I believe I had something to say about this amendment at Second Reading. As a serving judge, I shall be concerned if this amendment is agreed to, and broadly for the reasons to which my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has referred. The starting point is that it is a unique feature of English common law, as regards Europe, that we have this concept of being bound by it. With the possible exception of Eire, I believe that we would be the only member of the European Union which would regard the decisions of Strasbourg as binding on our local courts.
I see no reason that we should fetter ourselves in that way in dealing with a jurisprudence that is by definition a shifting one. I am particularly concerned, for the reasons to which my noble friend Lord Lester has referred, because, although until now the jurisprudence of Strasbourg has been powerful, with the expansion of the European Union there are now a number of judges from jurisdictions which in the past at least have not been famous for their defence of human rights. To find that we were bound by a decision of such a court would be unfortunate.
In practice there will be every encouragement to follow and produce a uniform jurisprudence. But to say that the courts of this country have to produce a result which in their view is unfair, in the sense of being bound by it, would produce an inertia in the development of
1270
human rights law which would be undesirable. For those reasons I prefer that we were required to have regard to the jurisprudence of Strasbourg, but not to be technically bound to follow it whether, in our view, it is right, wrong or indifferent.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, since this is the second innings in terms of what took place in Committee, I should like to amplify the points that I would have wished to make at that stage. I believe that the Bill is right in its existing wording and that the amendment is wrong in looking at the matter in regard to the English law of precedent. As I understand it, there are three main reasons. First, the decision for the court is usually whether an individual's rights have been violated in a particular case. It is most unlikely that there will be any need to be bound by a particular judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. It is entirely appropriate that any pre-existing judgment is used for guidance only and nothing more. Secondly, as I understand the established jurisprudence from Strasbourg, the convention must be treated as a living instrument that reflects present circumstances that may not be the same as those existing at the time of any earlier decision of the court, which may have derived from facts arising in a different signatory's state. Thirdly, the primary judgment in any particular case will rest with the national court which is to be given a margin of appreciation. In those circumstances, the wording of the Bill which requires our courts to take into account the decisions of the European court is firm enough.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said at Committee stage that I would reflect on the noble Lord's amendment, as indeed I did. I also hoped that he would have taken the opportunity to reflect on whether to persist with his amendment. As other noble Lords have said, the word "binding" is the language of strict precedent but the convention has no rule of precedent. The amendment would therefore go further than the convention required and, for reasons that I shall give in a moment, in an undesirable direction.
Perhaps I may be permitted the following observation. The Opposition has become the Janus party with two faces looking in the opposite direction. On the one hand, it opposes a Bill which in principle gives domestic effect to rights contained in an international treaty, while at the same time it seeks to amend the Bill so that the judgments of an international court are binding upon the courts in this country. We take the view that the expression "take in account" is clear enough. Should a United Kingdom court ever have a case before it which is a precise mirror of one that has been previously considered by the European Court of Human Rights, which I doubt, it may be appropriate for it to apply the European court's findings directly to that case; but in real life cases are rarely as neat and tidy as that. The courts will often be faced with cases that involve factors perhaps specific to the United Kingdom which distinguish them from cases considered by the European court. I agree with the noble and learned Lord,

1271
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, that it is important that our courts have the scope to apply that discretion so as to aid in the development of human rights law.
There may also be occasions when it would be right for the United Kingdom courts to depart from Strasbourg decisions. We must remember that the interpretation of the convention rights develops over the years. Circumstances may therefore arise in which a judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights decades ago contains pronouncements which it would not be appropriate to apply to the letter in the circumstances of today in a particular set of circumstances affecting this country. The Bill as currently drafted would allow our courts to use their common sense in applying the European court's judgment to such a case. We feel that to accept this amendment removes from the judges the flexibility and discretion that they require in developing human rights law.
Also in his contribution the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, echoed a point that I believe I made in Committee. Clause 2 requires the courts to pay heed to all the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights regardless of whether they have been given in cases involving the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not, of course, bound in international law to follow the court's judgments in cases to which it has not been a party and it would be strange to require courts in the United Kingdom to be bound by such decisions. In view of the observations of others and what I have just said in reply, I hope that the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may repeat one part of my opening remarks. If a domestic court makes a decision which is then incorporated into domestic law under the fast-track procedure, and meanwhile the litigant goes to the European Court of Human Rights and gets a decision that is different from that which has been incorporated in domestic law, does it mean that the government of the day will not under any circumstances incorporate the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in domestic law to the extent that it differs from their reaction to the domestic decision? Put another way, if a declaration of inconsistency by a domestic court has been incorporated in our own law does that set the limits of what the Government are prepared to accept from a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, whatever it is?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely understand the force of the question. As I understand it, the supposition is that the courts of the United Kingdom make a declaration of incompatibility and give their reasons for holding a statute to be incompatible; alternatively, Parliament moves fast and passes a remedial order which is of legislative effect in a certain legislative sense. As I understand the question, I am asked further to suppose that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg pronounces on that point, or something very close to it, in a sense not quite in accord with the reasons given by the court in making
1272
its declaration of incompatibility or the purpose of the remedial order. I can only say that in those circumstances the Government would obviously think again.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that response. He said in his first response that the Opposition was behaving Janus-like, looking in two directions or with two faces. I hope he did not intend to say that the Opposition was being two-faced in the way that it treated this Bill. I am happy to see the noble and learned Lord nodding in confirmation.
I was struck by three interventions which drew the attention of the House to the doctrine of precedent. It is true that the doctrine of precedent in our law is almost unique in Europe. I believe that it is also true of Ireland. But the issue goes beyond the issue of precedent. Since we are not bound by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights our judges can range very widely over possible interpretations of the terms of the convention. As a result of whatever decision they make, the legislature is obliged to incorporate that decision into law. This represents a profound constitutional shift from the way that we have done our work in this country over many centuries. From the reactions around the Chamber it appears that noble Lords are ready to accept that shift. Your Lordships should not do that without being aware of its implications. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Legislation]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 23, after ("legislation") insert ("(save for the Church of Scotland Act 1921)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the position of the Church of Scotland under the Bill, and, in particular, the relationship of the Bill to the provisions of the Church of Scotland Act 1921. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone. I talked to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, at the weekend. He told me that he might be delayed in reaching your Lordships' House this afternoon, and asked me to apologise if he did not arrive—and he does not appear to have done—before the amendment were called.
I hope that the House will accept that the fact that I feel able to put my name to the second of the two amendments indicates that no question of party politics lies behind either of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and myself, and I am sure also the noble Baroness, are united by a desire to lay before your Lordships the concerns of the Church of Scotland and its members, that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill, as presently drafted, is that it may seek to disturb and undermine the constitutional settlement that has existed between the Church of Scotland and the state since 1921.
I am not sure whether it is strictly necessary to declare any interest in a debate of this nature, but it would not surprise noble Lords to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I are members of the Church of Scotland. We are united in another respect, in that we are both the sons of the manse. We speak therefore with a common voice. I hope that what I have to say will strike a chord with and find support on other sides of the House.
At the outset I wish to make it clear, as the Church of Scotland has already made it clear to the Government, that it is not seeking a blanket exclusion from the Bill's provisions. Neither of the amendments would have such an effect. The Church seeks to safeguard the exclusive jurisdiction of its Church courts to legislate and adjudicate upon matters spiritual which involve—I quote from the fourth Declaratory Article set out in the schedule to the 1921 Act—
"all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church, including the right to determine all questions concerning membership and office in the Church. the constitution and membership of its Courts, and the mode of election of its office-bearers, and to define the boundaries of the spheres of labour of its ministers and other office-hearers".
The Church of Scotland is content that the Bill's provisions would apply to other activities in which it is engaged as a public authority; for example, work that it does to implement care-in-the community provisions, funded by central or local government. I am informed by the principal clerk of the General Assembly that the Church has no difficulty with the Bill's general purposes, and recognises that in relation to matters which are not matters spiritual the Church should properly come under the Bill's provisions. In that respect, the Church of Scotland may be in a different position from other Churches. The Church would wish your Lordships to consider its position from a different standpoint; namely, the constitutional settlement incorporated in the 1921 Act to which I shall refer in a moment.
Earlier in the debate, reference was made to the Church of Scotland being the established church of Scotland. Strictly speaking, that is not correct. The position of the Church of Scotland is different from that of the Church of England. While some people refer to the Church of Scotland as the national church of Scotland, it is not an established Church; it is a free Church. That is a matter which it holds dear.
Other noble Lords have said that they find it difficult to understand why a Church should seek to exclude itself, to any extent, from a Bill dealing with human rights. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, and was supported by other noble Lords.
To understand the nature of the concerns of the Church of Scotland, it is necessary to deal briefly with the historical background to the 1921 Act. When that background is considered, it will be readily appreciated, as I firmly believe, that the Government neither intended nor anticipated that the Bill's provisions would bring about the problem which has arisen between the Bill and the provisions of the 1921 Act. No such conflict was heralded in the White Paper. and, as far as I am aware,
1274
no such conflict was discussed or anticipated in any consultation that took place before the Bill was introduced.
In the 18th and 19th centuries there was a considerable history of conflict between Church and state in Scotland. Each asserted an exclusive jurisdiction to certain matters, which the other denied. That remains the position today. The jurisdiction of the Church is claimed by the Church to have been derived only from the Lord Jesus Christ, as the 1921 Act makes clear, and not from Parliament.
Unfortunately, many of those disputes resulted in litigation in the civil courts. That was perceived by members of the Church at that time as state interference. It led directly to what is known as the disruption of 1843, when many members and congregations left the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland was established. That latter Church had a history of divisions and unions, but by the turn of the century there had been formed what is known as the United Free Church of Scotland. Members of that Church adhered to the position that in certain matters it was entitled to exercise exclusive jurisdiction free from state interference. In that regard, the jurisdiction referred to was both legislative and a judicial one.
In 1929, the United Free Church of Scotland and other Churches united again with the Church of Scotland. An essential precursor to that union was the enactment of the Church of Scotland Act 1921. Before the Act was presented to Parliament the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland prepared what are known as Declaratory Articles which set out the constitution of the Church in matters spiritual. Those claimed the exclusive jurisdiction of the nature I have described. The Act was then passed. Section 1 of the Act provided that Parliament recognised that those Declaratory Articles were lawful articles in which the constitution of the Church was set forth, and no limitation of the liberty, rights and powers in matters spiritual could be derived from any statute or law affecting the Church.
Parliament thus recognised that the Church of Scotland had an exclusive jurisdiction of the nature that I have described—a jurisdiction free from interference by the civil authority. A serious concern has now arisen. It is that the Bill's provisions constitute an unavoidable breach of the provisions of the 1921 Act.
As those Members who were present in Committee on 18th November will recollect, I raised that matter for the first time. In particular, I raised the issue of whether the courts of the Church would fall within the definition of "public authority" in Clause 6. At the conclusion of the debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kindly undertook to reply in writing to my questions. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the letter which he sent to me last week. It followed certain meetings between Church officials and officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The noble Lord's letter acknowledges that the courts of the Church would appear to be courts for the purposes of the Bill and, accordingly, ought to be regarded as

1275
public authorities. He considers that it is right that that should be the case. That means that the courts will be subject to the provisions of the Bill and must have regard to relevant convention jurisprudence in order to avoid challenge in the civil courts. In other words, the Government acknowledge that the Bill seeks to regulate the way in which the courts of the Church of Scotland go about their legislative and judicial functions in matters spiritual.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognised the problem with jurisdiction and undertook to consider it further. However, his comments in the letter did not amount to an undertaking to bring forward an amendment which would address the problem. That was a great disappointment not only to me but to those in the Church of Scotland who have been following the matter with considerable interest.
I move the amendment today with the clear request that in reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Government, will acknowledge whether such a conflict exists; whether the Bill will permit the civil authorities to interfere with the way in which the Church courts conduct their business; and whether the Bill will admit the possibility of the Court of Session entertaining an application under Clause 4 to have a declarator of incompatibility granted in respect of the 1921 Act. If such acknowledgements are given, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will also be able to say that the Government will bring forward an amendment which eliminates such a conflict.
If, on the other hand, the Government's position is that having considered the matter since November last year such a conflict exists and the provisions of the Bill must and should prevail, it is incumbent upon the Minister to make that clear. The members of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, when they gather together in May, will then be aware of what has happened and can consider their reaction to what many in the Church will perceive as an attempt to undermine the constitutional settlement that has existed since 1921.
Successive governments since 1921 have reaffirmed their support for that settlement. I understand that the present Government did so shortly after coming to power. That is why I believe that what has happened has been unintended. I put that forward in a constructive mood because, as I indicated at the outset, I do not for one minute regard the issue as being one of party politics. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I put my name to the amendment, although I am not a member of the Church of Scotland nor a Scot. However, I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and I understand the same point which arises in Amendment No. 12, to which I have also attached my name. As the noble and learned Lord said, this is in no sense a party political matter.
I believe that the Church of Scotland is right to be concerned that the White Paper makes no mention of the fact that it is to be treated as a public authority.
1276
While in no way wishing to anticipate the arguments that I shall put forward in relation to my amendments, that is a serious omission.
>The noble and learned Lord clearly set out the history behind the 1920 Act. My reason for supporting the principle of the amendments—and I hope that the Government will agree to them or bring forward their own amendments on Third Reading if these are incorrectly drafted—is that I have been advised that Clause 6 is in conflict with the 1921 Act. Clause 6 classifies the Church as a public authority when it performs public functions. The result is that the freedoms which were enshrined in the 1921 Act will be restricted by the Bill before us. The Convention on Human Rights will override the 1921 agreement.
I understand that that came at the end of a great deal of difficulty for the Church and was a final settlement. It is wrong that it should be overturned in this way. I have every sympathy with the concerns of the Church of Scotland. At the end of last week, I was able to talk to Dr. McDonald of the Church of Scotland. I am sympathetic to all the points that have been made and I believe that we are agreed that the Church is directly affected by the Bill which amounts to the secularisation of what have previously been matters for the Church.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as regards my party and others, I believe that Amendment No. 8 is a matter of conscience. Two of the names in support of Amendment No. 12 are members of this party. However, speaking for myself and not for the party, I must express anxiety about the amendment. I do so largely for the reason expressed by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in discussing Amendment No. 2.
I welcome the acceptance by the Church of Scotland, expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that in its capacity as a public authority it will be subject to the Human Rights Bill, except in respect of the discipline of the Church courts as regards matters of faith. It is extremely unlikely that, in acting as a public authority, the Church of Scotland will find it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 9 of the convention, set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, is extremely broad and gives great width to religious bodies and organisations. The Church of Scotland is asking for exemption for its courts from the limitations in Article 9(2).
I accept that if the Church of England has a similar exemption, the Church of Scotland will also have that exemption. But the real problem is that if exemption is given to the Church of Scotland or, as we shall be debating later, to the Church of England, I am extremely concerned that it is opening the door to other religious bodies, some of whose practices in some cases are unquestionably contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I do not object to an amendment which simply has the effect of preserving the constitutional separation of the Church of Scotland from the state without weakening the application of that Church to the European Convention on Human Rights. If the Government believe that they are able to table an

1277
amendment which will have that effect, we shall support it. But for my part, I must express my personal concern about this matter and we shall return to it on later amendments.
5 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I wish to express support for the case which has just been put so very powerfully by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I do not belong to the Church of Scotland but I do declare a non-financial interest as a lay server in the Church of England. I assure my noble and learned friend that the fears which he expressed about the possible effect of this Bill on the Church of Scotland are shared equally by the Church of England and I believe are shared by all other established Churches in the land.
I am sure it is agreed generally that people have human rights which should be protected, particularly against abuse of power by the state or its agencies. But of course, there are also duties. Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. Equally, institutions have rights as well as duties. In our nation, institutions are essential to our general health. They provide stability, continuity and succour for individuals and families. Indeed, they are a powerful protection for people against undue influence by the state.
When we deal with Churches, we are dealing with a special type of institution because they are concerned with the spiritual needs of people and their religious freedoms. Churches could not possibly function effectively without membership conditions, rules and the means to uphold them. They are autonomous bodies; they have run their affairs over the centuries within the law; and there is a strong feeling, which I believe the Government recognise well, among all the Churches that the Bill as drafted could mean that the essential privileges and beliefs of the Churches could be undermined.
I am absolutely certain that the Government have no intention whatever of doing that. But I must suggest with great respect that, in the debate so far on this subject, nothing has been said which has effectively stilled the fears expressed by the Churches. I realise that this amendment deals with the Church of Scotland and my noble and learned friend has described the position. In regard to the Church of England, there is an equally strong case. That is an established Church and I rejoice that it is. That is good for both the Church and the state. But certainly in the case of the Church of England, Parliament already has effective control. Many of the measures which are passed by the Synod must be approved by Parliament. If Parliament does not approve those measures, they are null and void. In my recollection, that has happened on a number of occasions during my time in Parliament. That is not by any means a dead letter. Therefore I suggest that Parliament has ample opportunity, when it scrutinises Church legislation, to satisfy itself that the legislation is compatible with human rights.
1278
As my noble and learned friend mentioned in his opening remarks, there have been many clashes between the Church and the state over the centuries. It has never done anybody any good. I suggest that we should wish to avoid creating a new potential for friction and conflict which could arise from this Bill as drafted at present.
I realise that the Government have tabled later amendments which may deal with this point and I shall look forward with great interest to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, explain the purport of those amendments. However, I hope that the Government will at least accept the spirit if not the letter of this and allied amendments. I suggest that they can do so without in any way undermining the principle of the Bill and I very much hope that they will do so.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I yield to no one in my admiration for the Church of Scotland. I was brought up in it some while ago. However, I must confess that I do not adhere to any of its doctrines or beliefs. I speak as a total neutral in this religious matter.
I recall that Lenin was greatly attracted to the democratic practices of the Church of Scotland, although I do not imagine that he followed them very closely in his political activities. But it is those democratic practices of the Church which are attractive to such an unbeliever as myself.
However, the amendment worries me. We are dealing here with a Bill which is intended to extend, expand and safeguard human rights. I believe that everyone in this House agrees that that is desirable. But here we have a situation in which a body is trying to limit that extension of human rights.
I wonder what the Church of Scotland fears. Knowing many Presbyterians as I do, I cannot imagine that they would, in the Church, wish to do anything which limited human rights. Therefore, why are they fearful? In what way are they limited and confined? I cannot see it at all. The Church, by its very nature, must be compassionate—even Presbyterians are occasionally compassionate—and it must have regard for human rights. I believe that with the best of intentions this amendment is mistaken and I sincerely hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will advise against acceptance of the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may deal very briefly with this matter because I have a subsequent amendment, Amendment No. 24, which encompasses all religious bodies and which is obviously linked with this amendment. I do not anticipate what I shall say on that amendment which I propose to move.
However, this amendment is wholly requisite. It is not in fact met by Amendment No. 46, which was tabled, I believe, this morning. It is right to say, for the assistance of the House, that Amendment No. 24, which is concerned in its general application with all religious bodies of all creeds recognised as such in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, was tabled on 3rd December. In the wake of that fact serious discussions ensued between representatives of the General Synod and the Home Office. As a result,

1279
I received a letter today from Lambeth Palace to say that Ministers had agreed that Church of England Measures are to be removed from the remedial order making process—a rather grand way of describing the fast track procedure.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for much longer, but it is most important that similar negotiations and discussions, with a view to establishing a satisfactory arrangement—that is, far more satisfactory than that suggested in Amendment No. 46—should be undertaken between now and Third Reading. Alternatively, some such assurances should be given today. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, but when we deal with Amendment No. 24 I shall be looking most carefully at the detail, the nature and the extent of such assurances that are given before deciding whether or not to divide the House.
As regards the Church of England legislation, I have to point out that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has sent a message of congratulation and gratitude on the initiative taken as regards Amendment No. 24. I hope that a similar course of discussion can follow the very powerful initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon today.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the problem we face here is not one about relations between the Church of Scotland and human rights; it is a problem about relations between the Church of Scotland and the state. In case noble Lords should wonder why someone has intervened who is neither a Scot nor a Christian, I do so strictly in my capacity as a historian. This area of church/state relations is one where misunderstanding between these two countries has been endless. Indeed, I once described England and Scotland as two nations divided by a common language. It was specifically on a matter of church/state relations that I was speaking when I did so.
Scotland and the Netherlands are in effect the only countries in Europe where the Reformation came and was established from below. It means that the whole structure of church authority was quite different from that with which we in England are familiar. I listened earlier to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. Obviously I agree with him that the spiritual authority of the Church of England is in no way derived from the state, but its powers of jurisdiction are, I believe, generally recognised as legally, in their coercive capacity, derived from the state.
There has been a long struggle there for autonomy and enjoying the defence of the idea of academic freedom, which is very largely derived from the efforts of the church. I observe those with sympathy. But it is a quite different story from that of the Church of Scotland, which never recognised that it was established by any authority derived from the state. Its ultimate authority rested in the body of its members. It is the continual inability of English people to understand that which has caused a great deal of conflict between the two countries.
1280
The Church of Scotland has always claimed that it was not subject to Parliament. I understand that modifications in modern times have been reached on that point. However, the question remains: is the Church of Scotland a public authority within the meaning of the Act? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said, obviously in relation to its work in things like community care, which deserves a great deal of respect from us all, there would not be a problem. But where we get into spiritual matters we might save ourselves a great deal more trouble than we imagine if we could find a way of wording the Bill which secured the full agreement of the General Assembly.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Earl has just told the House something most important. I hope that noble Lords listen to him most carefully. I strongly support the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that he did not know what the Church of Scotland was afraid of. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Steel—of which I have had sight and which formed the basis of the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay—the Church of Scotland has set out the exact nature of its fears, so they will be on the record. I hope that the Government will pay attention to them.
I have a few questions that I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will cover in his response. This seems to be the right time to ask such questions, as I understand the noble and learned Lord will be replying. First, what is the position of the other Churches in Scotland under the Bill? Is it the same as all other non-established Churches in the rest of the United Kingdom, or is it different? Secondly, will that relationship be changed when the Scots parliament is created? We understand that the legislation of the Scots parliament will be subject to different treatment under the Bill from that of the Westminster Parliament. Will that affect the other Churches? If it does not affect them at all and if their relationship is precisely the same as that of other non-established Churches in the UK, then we can discuss such Churches under the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young. I shall be content if that is the position.
I should be most grateful to receive a precise reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate because there is anxiety in Scotland in the Roman Catholic Church which, as the noble and learned Lord knows, is as big as the Church of Scotland, and in the Free Church of Scotland. My own Church, the Scottish Episcopal Church, is at present sanguine. It has not yet begun to discuss the matter. I would like to know whether that Church will find itself in the same position as other non-established Churches in the UK. I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could cover those points in his response.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I support the amendment in principle as, indeed, I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her later amendments. I do so very firmly because, as what I may call an ordinary rank and file clergyman, I believe that we can see this

1281
in perspective and the dangers involved. If we are going to be able to uphold, practise and proclaim as far and as fully as we can our belief—and the same applies to other Churches—are we going to feel that because we are doing so we are preventing some people from having human rights? I do not believe that that is the case. If they cannot agree with our principles and beliefs, then, in a sense, one has to say, "Sorry, go somewhere where you will be able to find something of your outlook."
I believe that there is a danger involved in using the argument that the Churches will find themselves being taken up for denying human rights and liberties. I deny that they have or that they will deny human rights and liberties to any person in conducting baptism, marriages, funerals, and so on, because they are holding to the proclaimed beliefs of their Church. In baptism, for example, some of my fellow clergymen and even perhaps right reverend Prelates might think that, in some ways, I was too easy because I never said to any couple who came to me, "Now I must be convinced that you are Christian; I must be convinced by that because of your way of life and by the fact that you come regularly to church"—which really meant, most probably, every Sunday—"before I will think of baptising your child". I baptised anyone whether or not of the congregation, because I believed that something in them felt for God and the Church; and we are there to give, not to deny. The only time I have refused a request is with regard to marriage. I have married divorced people and I have let the bishop know. I have married divorcées. We should be able graciously to say to people, "We have this belief. We have this custom. Try to understand it", and if they cannot do so, one has to say, "Sorry" to their request. But on the whole those people will not make such a request. They may feel that they can go to another of the many traditions within the Church of England, or to some other church.
Speaking seriously, it is dangerous to dismiss these dangers as regards the Church of England, the Church of Scotland or any of the main Churches. I support the amendment in principle. I have great admiration for the Scottish Episcopal Church. My daughter married an Irish-Scot and lives in Helensburgh. She attends the Scottish Episcopalian Church in Helensburgh; and it is a jolly good church. Perhaps it could give a lead to some English parishes.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we have allowed individuals to bring cases before the European Commission since January 1966. I am not aware of a single case involving this country in which any of the problems referred to by any noble Lord have been raised. I am not aware of any textbook in which anyone has suggested that any of the issues ever would be raised.
Although I accept the sincerity and force with which noble Lords speak, it seems to me undesirable if the main debates on the Bill should be dominated by a
1282
matter which, before the Bill was brought in, no one ever suggested raised any problems under the convention.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice as another member of the Episcopal Church, which seems to be well represented here. Underlying this issue may be uncertainty as to precisely what is meant in the Bill by the word "public". It appears in the phrase "public authority" which is not definitively defined. However, in Clause 6(3) one has some flavour of it. The greater problem is the reference to "functions … of a public nature".
One associates this clause with the processes of judicial review. One is well aware of the distinctions drawn between public and private activities as a means of trying to define the scope of the English supervisory jurisdiction. But if those terms are taken to have substantial meaning they may not serve adequately to provide a sufficiently exact definition. In Scotland the courts have turned their face against the use of such language and have rejected the public/private distinction as a test for the jurisdiction of the supervisory powers of the court. It may be that the word "public" in this context will be open to definition and interpretation.
I have understood—I hope that I am right; but those who know far more about the history and substance of the European Convention on Human Rights will correct me—that in essence the rights laid down are rights for the benefit of the private individual against the state and not against anyone else. If that is right, it may be that it is essentially the state quality of public authority to which attention should be paid in defining what will be Section 6. If that is right, there may be an answer to the problem. Just as the courts in the past have respected the internal operations of ecclesiastical bodies, so also the scope of this article should be limited so as to exclude such operations.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Church of Scotland. In that capacity I find myself in almost total agreement with the case so ably stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The only exception I take is that he stated that this is not a political matter. He is a little wrong in that. It is not a party political matter; but it is a political matter. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, this is a matter of the relations between the Church and the state. The relations have existed happily under successive governments for the past 76 years. That is rather remarkable in religious history in Scotland. If we go back to the last century, the experience was not of seeking to reach agreement but of finding out on how many occasions one could be different from other people. We are remarkably free from that aspect and we should not be taking any risk in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Howie said that the Church should be compassionate. Of course it should. But I cannot believe that in this Bill the Church of Scotland will be infringing the human rights of its own members.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon move his

1283
amendment, I naturally wondered what there was in the Bill which interfered in any way with an ecclesiastical court of any Church; and I could find nothing. However, when he mentioned the broad definition that can be Oven to public authority, I thought that he had a point. However, the point can be better dealt with by amending Clause 6, which deals with public authority, by making it clear that public authority in the context of the Bill does not include any kind of ecclesiastical court. I believe that that would be a far better way of solving the problem.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am not a member of the Church of Scotland. However, I believe that this is an important point not only for the Church of Scotland but in general. The issue raised is perhaps best focused by asking the question whether, in the Government's view, when referring to a public authority, the Bill includes an ecclesiastical court or authority of a Church deciding what is a spiritual question in the words of the Act of 1921. For example, is a court of the Church of Scotland, in deciding a spiritual question, a public authority within the meaning of Clause 6(3) of the Bill?
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, the suggestion has been made, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that no case has been brought which suggests that a problem might arise which would be affected by the matter we are discussing. To set the record straight, perhaps I should mention that a case came before the Court of Session in Scotland in 1995 in which the Court of Session had to ask itself whether it had jurisdiction to examine the way in which a Church court, a presbytery of the Church of Scotland, had conducted a particular affair. The Court of Session, I think that it is right to say, saw this as a dispute as to its jurisdiction to review the activities of what it considered to be another court.
It has been said that there is an issue here as between church and state. But it should also be regarded as a question which would affect the relationship between the church as a court and the Court of Session as a civil court. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in replying, would direct some comments to that matter.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he is aware that, in England, similar issues have arisen in English judicial review courts, notably recently in relation to the Beth Din and the Chief Rabbi in dealing with matters of Jewish law and discipline. The English judicial review courts have consistently held that they have no jurisdiction to use the powers under Order 53 to review decisions taken in that way, for reasons that are rather similar to those outlined by the noble and learned Lord in relation the Court of Session.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, the case in Scotland that I have in mind was not one of judicial review. It was brought for a declaration in relation to
1284
the activities of the church court. It more precisely addressed the real issue which may underlie the whole problem; namely, the distinction between matters spiritual and matters which are properly open to review in regard to human rights.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a bewildered layman, I believe the matter is becoming rather clear. It seems quite right that the temporal authority should have precedence in temporal matters and that the spiritual authority must have precedence in spiritual matters. It appears from reading the Bill that the legislation has blurred the line between what is temporal and what is spiritual. The appointment of persons and their qualification to appointment may be very largely a spiritual matter but under the Bill will be treated as a temporal matter. Therefore the spiritual authority may be overridden by the temporal authority by the action of this legislation. It is from that eventuality that my noble friends and others seek to protect the Church of Scotland and, later on, other Churches.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter in two regards. In view of the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I should declare that I am, as she suggested, a Roman Catholic; and in relation to this particular debate I should also declare that I am married to a member of the Church of Scotland. My wife is an Elder, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, will be aware, since they are both Elders in the same church. Noble Lords will therefore see that this is not an easy matter from any point of view.
I shall deal first with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about other Churches in Scotland and the effect of the Scottish parliament. Under the Scotland Bill anything done by the Scottish parliament, or by a Minister of that parliament, which is contrary to the European convention will be void. In relation to the second question, namely the position of the other Churches in Scotland, all Churches in Scotland will be treated on the same basis.
I turn to the point raised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon; namely, whether the Bill interferes with the Church of Scotland in its dealing with matters spiritual. I confirm that that is not the case. The Bill regulates only human rights. Unless the church courts and the Church itself, in the exercise of their public functions, wish to depart from the concept of human rights in the way in which they conduct their business, there will be no conflict between church and state. I am confident that the Church will do its best to observe the principles of human rights referred to and incorporated by the Bill into domestic law.
As noble Lords will be aware, frequently, although with the best of intentions, people fail to achieve their objectives. In the event that there is a failure to observe human rights there may well be a conflict between the Church and this provision. If there is such a conflict, it is our position that the courts will prevail. The civil courts will deal only with convention rights and not with the spiritual government of the Church.

1285
The purpose of these amendments is to exempt the Church of Scotland Act 1921 from the provisions of the Human Rights Bill and to re-state the recognition under the 1921 Act of the separate and independent government and jurisdiction of the Church in matters spiritual.
In Committee, several noble Lords raised points about the possible impact of the Bill, not only on the Church of Scotland but on other Churches. Some noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to later amendments to be considered. Subsequent amendments deal with the Church of England. They will be dealt with fully by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. At this stage we are concerned with amendments relating to the Church of Scotland and the 1921 Act.
So far as the Church of Scotland is concerned, I accept that the amendments are not influenced by party-political considerations. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the position adopted by the Government is equally not influenced by such considerations, or indeed by considerations of any particular religious persuasion. In the case of the Church of Scotland we have to look carefully at the implications of this legislation for the Church of Scotland Act 1921, which the Church of Scotland very properly considers a very important legislative statement of its independence in matters spiritual.
I wish to make it clear that the Government have no intention of interfering with the Church's religious freedom. That is a repetition of a statement that was made by the Government in confirmation of statements made by previous governments in relation to the position of the Church of Scotland. However, I wish to emphasise that the Bill does not interfere with the religious freedom of the Church of Scotland, nor is it intended to do so. I cannot emphasise that point strongly enough. The Church of Scotland Act 1921, to which the Church of Scotland rightly attaches much importance, establishes clearly the independence of the Church in spiritual matters. Such issues are properly matters for the Church and the Church alone.
However, it may be that in some circumstances the authorities of the Church of Scotland could be public authorities for the purposes of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, properly recognised that certainly in performing certain functions they would come within that category. He referred to care in the community.
The question of whether a church body is a public authority in any particular circumstance will be a matter for the ordinary courts, as it is at the moment. I refer to the case of Logan in 1995 mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. That was a case where the Court of Session considered whether it had jurisdiction. After the Bill becomes law—if that is your Lordships' wish—the position will be that the Court of Session will consider whether the particular circumstances of an act by the Church indicate that, in performing that act, the Church can be described as a public authority.
1286
If it is a public authority, there seems to be no reason to exempt the institutions of the Church of Scotland from the public authority provisions of the Bill when it is acting in that capacity. The policy of the Government is that if a Church body is a public authority the Bill should apply to it. In this situation it seems to me that the Church would not wish to maintain that breaches of human rights committed by its institutions are purely matters of spiritual concern which should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. In saying that, I wish to express confidence that the Church of Scotland, as other Churches, will do its utmost to comply with the spirit and intention of the legislation.
It is also clear to me that the civil courts will not want to involve themselves in spiritual matters, as was evidenced by the case of Logan to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred. The civil courts will wish to confine themselves in any individual case to the minimum examination necessary to arrive at a decision on whether there has been any infringement of the legislation: in other words, was the Church acting as a public authority and, if so, is it in breach of the legislative provisions?
The civil courts would not want to intrude further into the business of the Church than is required to ensure proper observance of convention rights. Nor will the Bill entitle them to do so. The courts would, I am certain, continue to respect the spiritual independence to which the Church of Scotland properly attaches great importance.
While, as I have acknowledged, there are difficult issues of jurisdiction here, I do not think it would be right to exempt the Church of Scotland Act 1921 from the provisions in the Bill in the way proposed. The policy of the Government, as expressed in the Bill, is to enable the ordinary courts to inquire into proceedings of Church bodies only so far as may be necessary to resolve human rights questions. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he be so good as to look at page 4 of the Bill? Near the top of that page he will see subsection (3) of Clause 6, which says:
"In this section, 'public authority' includes—

(a) a court or tribunal, and

(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".

For the removal of doubt, and to give clear guidance to the courts in deciding the matters which the noble Lord has mentioned, would it not be a good thing to add in that subsection words such as:
"but 'public authority' does not include any kind of Church court or religious court of any kind"?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for that intervention, but, with respect, I do not think that that would meet the point. If a Church court were performing a function which could be described as a function of a public authority and is dealing with something other than a purely spiritual

1287
matter peculiar to the Church, it would not be appropriate to exempt such a body from the provisions of the legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord says that the courts will not inquire into spiritual matters. How will one stop a court from doing so if a complaint is made before it? Is the suggestion that the Church of Scotland, the Church of England, or whichever Church, should move to strike out the pleadings? How is one to define the line between spiritual and other matters? I simply ask as a practical, knock-about lawyer. I can see tremendous difficulties in what is being proposed.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, that is precisely the kind of question that the civil courts deal with at present. They would consider the particular circumstances of the situation and decide whether the body was acting as a public authority. If it were acting in a purely spiritual capacity, the courts would decline jurisdiction.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, is this not a matter of much greater generality than the Church of Scotland? It revolves around two matters. One is the ability to define what is spiritual. I speak as a committed atheist, but I would have thought that the fundamental beliefs of the Church are to do with the Church and not with the secular authority. Membership of the Church involves "believing" all kinds of things. I cannot see that the courts ought remotely to consider becoming involved in that.
The counterpart of that is the ability to define human rights. I speak as a strong supporter of the Convention on Human Rights. In my lifetime human rights have grown at an incredible rate. Years ago many things would not have been regarded as human rights which are now. Is not the problem for the Government in incorporating this into legislation that they are taking what might be called a static view of human rights—that is, that no human rights will emerge or be demanded? As an atheist, I can say that, if I were a member of the Church, I should be extremely perturbed by this and by the answers that my noble and learned friend has given so far. He assumes, optimistically, that the civil courts will come up with the right answer all the time. If I were a religious or spiritual person, I should feel very threatened.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct that it would not be appropriate for the courts to deal with the theological or fundamental beliefs of members of a Church; nor would they be entitled to do so in terms of this legislation. I simply remind my noble friend of Article 9 of the convention, which confers upon individuals significant rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Those rights are enshrined in the convention itself and in the provisions which are being incorporated.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, just before the Lord Advocate sits down finally, my question is,
1288
would the definition which the Government have put into this Bill, taking the court of Scotland as an example, make a Church court which was deciding a spiritual matter, a matter of faith, a public authority within the meaning of that definition? If not, why not?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the short answer to my noble and learned friend is, no, it would not include that situation, the reason being that the Scottish courts, as my noble and learned friend will be aware, because of the relationship between Church and state, have been slow to interfere, and indeed have refused to interfere in matters of this nature. Therefore, if the Church court were deciding a matter spiritual, the courts would not be entitled to review that.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I would like to know the answer to this question. I would know had I read the Bill as thoroughly as I ought to have done. Does the 1921 Act remain on the statute book in its present form, or is it altered in any way by this Bill?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, it is not altered in any way by this Bill. It remains on the statute book.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could help me. I am troubled by various statements that have been made that, in dealing with matters spiritual, the court is not a public authority. As I read Clause 6(3)(a), the question does not arise. The real question is whether the body is a court at all. If it is a court, then it is by definition a public authority. I agree that the civil courts may then say, "It is not appropriate for us to grant a remedy" but, as far as its not being a public authority is concerned, the Act simply says that it is.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, of course, the argument I would anticipate being advanced to establish that it was not a court would be that in dealing with human rights, one has to be dealing with a court which is properly constituted or a tribunal established by law. The Church courts are not courts within that meaning, within that sense.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, in the light of the answer of the noble and learned Lord, perhaps he could answer the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Renton: would he be prepared to undertake at a later stage to put into the statute an amendment which expressly excluded courts exercising spiritual jurisdiction, to define that they were not public authorities within the meaning of the Act?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, we are at the Report stage. This has gone on far too long and it is high time that we had a reply from Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I regard it as a great compliment that there is any wish to hear from me again, and I am sorry to disappoint your Lordships by saying that I only wish to make very few remarks.

1289
It is obvious from the contributions which have been made by noble Lords who have both supported and spoken against this amendment that the issues which it raises are very important issues indeed. I stand rightly corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in having referred to this as not being a political issue; I should have said that it is not a party political issue. It is for that reason that I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House on this amendment. However, I have to say quite frankly that I sense the mood of the House is such that, were I to do so, there would be a serious risk of the House being persuaded that there is merit in my amendment. For that reason, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord Advocate for giving a very full reply to the issues which I and others raised, and I very firmly hope that he and his colleagues will think very seriously indeed as to whether some recasting of the provisions of Clause 3 or Clause 6 of this Bill might meet the genuine and very moderately stated concerns that have been raised.
We will all read again not only the questions he was asked but the answers he has given. For my part, I am more than willing to meet with him and his colleagues to see whether some solution can be found. As far as the Church of Scotland is concerned, there appears to be an inherent conflict between the terms of the 1921 Act and this Bill, and it is, in my respectful submission, incumbent upon the Government to come forward with some solution to that conflict. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 29, at beginning insert ("subject to subsection (3)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Amendment No. 11 is the effective amendment. It preserves in English law a perfectly well established doctrine consonant with an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament, namely, the rule that if a later Bill is inconsistent with the provisions of an earlier Bill, those provisions of the earlier Bill are impliedly, even if not expressly, repealed. It is known as the doctrine of implied repeal. Although it is very rarely necessary in these days to rely on that doctrine, it is still extant.
It is not necessary these days in general to rely on it because most later Acts which amend earlier Acts have a repeal schedule and, indeed, a schedule of minor and consequential amendments. Nevertheless, the rule remains in English law and it is extremely valuable in relation to the law. It is essential that it should be preserved.
At Committee I put down a number of amendments seeking to extend the Bill, notably by extending the definition of a public authority. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor demurred to being pushed further in that way. At this stage I have only tabled amendments which are well within the parameter of this measure.
The problem which faced the Government in "patriating" the Convention on Human Rights was this: certain provisions of English statute law would be found to offend or to be incompatible with the provisions of the convention. One way to deal with that would have been to allow English courts to strike down the offending measure, as happens in the United States which has a written constitution and where the federal courts strike down and declare null and void measures which are inconsistent with the constitution.
In relation to this measure, the Government decided that it would be inconsistent with the sovereignty of Parliament and, so far as I know, nobody quarrelled with that view. But that faced the Government with a difficult problem; that is, how to maintain the sovereignty of Parliament while allowing the convention to be incompatible with provisions of our previous statutory legislation.
One must draw a distinction—it is useful to do that at this stage—between antecedent statutes which are found to be incompatible and prospective ones; in other words, statutes enacted after the provisions of this Bill come into force. The Government tried, rightly and ingeniously, to minimise the circumstances whereby an Act of Parliament would be found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the convention. They did that by stipulating, as your Lordships know, a new rule relating to statutory construction. Instead of the courts seeking what is the natural meaning of a word or phrase they were to seek a possible meaning, which means a reasonably possible meaning, consistent with the convention. That has been generally accepted and the Government are to be congratulated on coming up with that solution. Admittedly, that leaves some measures which, however construed, will be found to be incompatible with the convention rights.
In relation to future measures, the Government proposed to deal with them in two ways. First, they would minimise the chance of future legislation being incompatible by requiring the Minister in charge of the Bill to make a declaration as to its compatibility. Even then it may be found that there was an incompatibility in future legislation and where that was ascertained the Government established what is being called a "fast-track" for remedial orders. That is, a statutory rule and order on an accelerated process which will correct the incompatibility of the earlier statute. That maintains the sovereignty of Parliament which they were anxious to maintain.
However, the system has two disadvantages. The first is that it involves delay in which somebody aggrieved by the statute may be delayed in any remedy. The second is that it involves a massive extension of Henry VIII provisions; secondary legislation amending primary legislation. Your Lordships have gulped and put up with that on the whole because it is difficult to see how else future legislation could he dealt with. But it is unnecessary in relation to past legislation. So long as the doctrine of implied repeal is maintained—as I said, a manifestation of the sovereignty of Parliament: the doctrine that no Parliament can bind a later Parliament, so that subsequent Parliaments can repeal or amend

1291
earlier legislation—that takes care entirely of all antecedent legislation found to be incompatible, which is more likely to be the case than subsequent legislation.
The amendment does not in any way affect the rule of interpretation. It does not affect the fast-track procedure, even involving Henry VIII provisions in relation to future legislation; but it uses the doctrine of implied repeal to get rid of antecedent legislation which is incompatible. That is entirely consonant with the supremacy of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will recall, I wasted a good deal of Home Office time in the summer attempting to persuade the Government that they should expressly preserve the doctrine of implied repeal in the Bill. I did not succeed. Therefore, I naturally start with a great deal of sympathy for what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I agree with a great deal of it. However, on reflection I wonder whether it is necessary and I should like to explain why.
First, perhaps I can brush to one side a bad argument in the White Paper in paragraph 2.14, where it is suggested that what is wrong with the doctrine of implied repeal is that it involves the courts striking down legislation in some way in conflict with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. As the noble and learned Lord explained, that is not what the doctrine of implied repeal does; it is intended to give effect to the intention of the legislature by regarding what is said in the later statute as reflecting its true intention and reading the earlier statute to conform, if necessary, as impliedly repealing the earlier provision.
The reason why I doubt whether one needs to introduce an amendment of this kind is that it seems to me that the command in the Bill—where possible to construe existing and future legislation to conform with convention rights—is so strong that it leaves entirely open the possibility that the courts will, in effect, use the doctrine of implied repeal or something like it in order to achieve the correct result, which is no mismatch between our statute book and the convention.
I was encouraged in that view, in particular, by a remarkable lecture recently given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture, under the auspices of Justice. With your permission I would like to refer to one or two of the matters in that lecture which seem to me to show exactly the approach that the courts will be adopting.
The Lord Chancellor pointed out that the Act, when it comes into force, will require new judicial techniques of interpretation. He said:
"The Act will require the courts to read and give effect to the legislation in a way compatible with the convention rights 'so far as it is possible to do so'. This … goes far beyond the present rule. It will not be necessary to find an ambiguity. On the contrary the courts will be required to interpret legislation so as to uphold the convention rights unless the legislation itself is so clearly incompatible with the convention that it is impossible to do so".
The Lord Chancellor continued:
"Moreover, it should be clear from the parliamentary history. and in particular the ministerial statement of compatibility which will be required by the Act, that Parliament did not intend to cut across a
1292
convention right. Ministerial statements of compatibility will inevitably be a strong spur to the courts to find means of construing statutes compatibly with the convention".
1 break off to observe that that, of course, is dealing with post Human Rights Act legislation not pre-Act. Then the Lord Chancellor said this:
"Whilst this particular approach is innovative, there are some precedents which will assist the courts. In cases involving European Community law, decisions of our courts already show that interpretative techniques may be used to make the domestic legislation comply with the community law, even where this requires straining the meaning of words or reading in words which are not there".
He gave as an example the well known Litster case decided in 1990. He also referred to the jurisprudence in New Zealand. He then said this:
"The court will interpret as consistent with the convention not only those provisions which are ambiguous in the sense that the language used is capable of two different meanings but also those provisions where there is no ambiguity in that sense, unless a clear limitation is expressed. In the latter category of case it will he 'possible' (to use the statutory language) to read the legislation in a conforming sense because there will be no clear indication that a limitation on the protected rights was intended so as to make it 'impossible' to read it as conforming".
I apologise for reading all of that but it is very important because it shows. from the highest authority among the makers of the Bill in this House, that there will be a new approach to statutory interpretation. A declaration of incompatibility will be a systemic failure. I believe that that will very rarely happen, and that our courts will act in a similar way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when construing ordinary legislation in the context of Commonwealth constitutional guarantees of human rights; that is, by reading in and reading down: reading in safeguards to save the statute in accordance with human rights; and reading down—reading narrowly restrictions upon human rights; adopting a generous approach, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to give human rights their full scope and avoiding what the noble and learned Lord described as the austerity of tabulated legalism.
Against that background it seems to me that to go to the doctrine of implied repeal, which has often been criticised by academic commentators, for reasons that I do not need to go into, is now unnecessary. The new principles described by the Lord Chancellor—although of course it is not a matter for him in the end but for the courts themselves to decide how to interpret the provisions of this Bill—seem to me to take care of the problem which the noble and learned Lord has quite properly raised in his amendment.
May I finally say that I do not share his criticism of the Bill as being a massive extension of Henry VIII clauses but that is a matter to which we will no doubt return at a later stage.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I would like to support the amendment. It seems to me that the Government's preoccupation with preserving parliamentary sovereignty has caused them to over-complicate the situation. As has been made perfectly clear, we are concerned in this amendment with pre-existing

1293
legislation and not with future legislation. To preserve the sovereignty of Parliament, the slightly complex procedure of the declaration of incompatibility followed, one anticipates, with the reaction by Parliament to put the matter right, is quite unnecessary in relation to pre-existing legislation. The mistake made in the White Paper, to which the noble Lord has just drawn attention, is the clue to the unnecessary application of the declaration of incompatibility approach to pre-existing legislation.
It is perfectly clear that the doctrine of implied repeal is an existing part of English law. I cannot find anything in the Bill to prevent the courts, where appropriate, from using the doctrine of implied repeal. All this necessity to adopt an entirely new approach to interpretation in relation to pre-existing legislation is made quite unnecessary if one follows that doctrine. It involves no problem with regard to infringing parliamentary sovereignty. I think that the strain which is to be imposed upon the judiciary to go through the forensic gymnastics which have been referred to can be so easily relieved in regard to pre-existing legislation, and that is the merit of this amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has done the House a service by reading into the record so much of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the Tom Sargant Lecture because we have been led to believe that the purpose of the Bill was to avoid allowing the judiciary to strike down Acts of Parliament. But what the Tom Sargant Lecture makes clear is the intention that the striking down of legislation overtly is to be achieved covertly by the interpretation provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill. One should remember that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in Committee that the provisions of Clause 1 were perhaps the most important part of the Bill. I would agree with that, but I feel it is wrong to go covertly in a way which the Government are not prepared to go openly.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, it is very rare that I find myself disagreeing, even respectfully, with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but I do not see that the doctrine of implied repeal solves any problems at all. I do not think it is even intended to solve this problem. As I understand it, it arises where you have two statutes: statute A which sets out certain rights, liabilities or procedures, and statute B, a later statute, which sets out certain rights, liabilities or procedures. You look at the two and find that there is an inconsistency between the earlier statute and the later one. The court, in accordance with this doctrine, says, "Parliament must have intended to repeal the first statute or some part of it, so we can forget about the implied repeal part". That does not work with this Bill because here we have, in theory, an earlier statute giving rise to rights, liabilities or procedures, and then we find an incompatibility. But we do not have an alternative set of rights, liabilities or procedures to judge one against the other to see whether there is an implied repeal. All we know is that the earlier statute is inconsistent. We have nothing else to substitute.
1294
I strongly suspect that in most cases there will be more than one way of remedying the incompatibility. You really would be involving the courts in a legislative function of no mean order if it were pointed out to them that there were, say, three ways of remedying the inconsistency and leaving it to them to choose which. I do not think the amendment works in the way in which its proposers intend it to work. Accordingly, I oppose it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. I shall speak to all three. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for again raising the doctrine of implied repeal, but I fear that I must disappoint him by maintaining my opposition to his amendments. That is not because of any unwillingness to contemplate amendments or the possibility of their correctness, but because the amendments go to a central building block in the scheme of the Bill.
The Bill sets out a scheme for giving effect to the convention rights which maximises the protection to individuals while retaining the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 3 is the central part of this scheme. Clause 3(1) requires legislation to be read and given effect to so far as it is possible to do so in a way that is compatible with the convention rights. Clause 3(2) provides that where it is not possible to give a compatible construction to primary legislation or to subordinate legislation whose incompatibility flows from the terms of the parent Act, that does not affect its validity, continuing operation or enforcement. This ensures that the courts are not empowered to strike down Acts of Parliament which they find to be incompatible with the convention rights. Instead, Clause 4 of the Bill, together with Clauses 10 to 12, introduces a new mechanism through which the courts can signal to the Government that a provision of legislation is, in their view, incompatible. It is then for government and Parliament to consider what action should be taken. I believe that this will prove to be an effective procedure and it is also one which accords with our traditions of parliamentary sovereignty. That is why the Bill adopts it.
I agree with the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. The position under the Bill is that, where pre-existing legislation cannot be construed by the courts compatibly with the convention, the intention of the Government is that the courts may make a declaration of incompatibility and then Parliament may make a remedial order.
Adopting and not taking up the time of your Lordships repeating the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, I would add that it is not the intention of the Bill to repeal any pre-existing legislation that is incompatible with the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was kind enough to refer to my recent Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture. I shall not add to whatever authority these extra-judicial observations may have—I doubt much—by repeating in the House anything that I said then.

1295
I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis that it is contrary to the principles on which we have constructed the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has repeated in slightly different terms the case he made in Committee. He said then that the amendment was contrary to the scheme of the Bill. What he meant was, "contrary to my scheme for the Bill". He put it today in the way of building blocks—we are interfering with his building blocks. The amendment is entirely compatible with the general building blocks of the Bill. It is confined to the cases where a declaration of incompatibility is made in relation to antecedent legislation. That is the whole scope—the only scope. That declaration of incompatibility will have been made in spite of the attempts to reconcile the convention with the pre-existing legislation.
My noble and learned friend insists that rather than rely on an existing rule of law we have to go through, both for pre-existing legislation as well as subsequent legislation, the paraphernalia of the fast track, the remedial order and so on. That has two disadvantages; first, delay in a remedy and, secondly, Henry VIII provisions which are unacceptable constitutionally unless we are absolutely forced to follow them.
However, my noble and learned friend will not have any alterations to his Bill except on the Government's initiative. We raised no objection when my noble and learned friend appeared to be trying on a cardinal's hat. It is only when he goes on to claim the triple tiara of infallibility that we beg to demur. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Declaration of incompatibility]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn) moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("one or more of the Convention rights") and insert ("a Convention right").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I should like to speak to the other government amendments grouped with it: Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, 22, 39, 44 and 45, and to Amendment No. 21 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
These government amendments to Clauses 4, 6 and 10 are a response to the amendment to Clause 6 which the noble and learned Lord tabled for Committee and which he has tabled again for Report. I have to say that his amendment caused a considerable amount of thought within the Government and has met with the open-minded response that is so frequently remarked on by the noble and learned Lord.
At the Committee Stage the noble and learned Lord wanted to replace the words "one or more of the Convention rights" with the different formulation "the
1296
Convention rights". He described that as a drafting improvement but the amendment was designed also to have a substantive effect. He was concerned about what might happen if a public authority were required to comply with one or more of the convention rights. He gave, for instance, the example of a BBC broadcast which was considered to intrude upon someone's privacy, contrary to Article 8, but which might be justified under Article 10 protecting freedom of expression. He thought that the Bill, as drafted, might induce the courts to look only at the Article 8 invasion of privacy and not Article 10.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It was not a case of the court being forced to look at only one article but that an offence would be committed by the public authority if only one was considered without consideration of a counterbalance. That would be if only one convention right were infringed.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand that. I was about to say that we entirely agree that a court should be able to take account of convention rights that pull in different directions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I have said that. It has been readily accepted by noble Lords who have attended that that is the whole purpose of the Bill. But our analysis of the position differs from that of the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I may take his example. A claimant will allege that a particular convention right of his or hers has been infringed. The respondent will claim that it has not. I entirely agree, therefore, that the question is this. In what circumstances will the court have to balance his right against the convention right of some other person? The answer comes from the convention itself and the European Court of Human Rights.
As regards the Article 8 example, the claimant will allege infringement of his rights to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, in Article 8(1). The authority may well reply that the act in question was necessary to pursue one of the aims permitted by Article 8(2), which, of course, include the rights and freedoms of others, including other convention rights. The claim will be that there has been a breach of Article 8(1). The court, in considering that claim, will be able to look beyond Article 8 itself; for example, to Article 10. But the finding will not be that there has been a breach of Article 8 justified by Article 10. The finding in these circumstances will either be that there has been a breach of Article 8 or that there has been no breach of that article.
Even where a claimant relies on an article of the convention which has no built-in reference to other rights, as Article 8 undoubtedly does, there is the overriding effect of Article 17. Clause 1(1) of the Bill

1297
refers to it. I do not believe that it has been mentioned frequently in your Lordships' House, but Article 17 states:
"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or"—
then these important words—
"at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention".
That is a classic description of the balancing act which the Government believe is the appropriate task for the courts to perform. Therefore, we suggest that the balancing which I have described quite briefly is much more sophisticated and subtle and is designed specifically to be that, rather than the simple case of two litigants, each asserting conflicting convention rights.
The balancing is to be carried out in the context of the particular article on which the claimant bases his claim. So in the Article 8 example, the court will be adjudicating on the question whether that article has been infringed. Plainly, there will be different balancing to be done by the courts in different claims.
We believe, on sound historic experience, that the courts in this jurisdiction are peculiarly well equipped to carry out these balancing exercises as the whole development of the common law tradition in this country has been substantially based on the sort of subtle balancing that the courts will be required to carry out. That leads to the question as to the best formulation. Should the Bill refer to "one or more of the Convention rights," or "the Convention rights" or "a Convention right?" We have genuinely and conscientiously given this a good deal of thought and we believe that the phrase "a Convention right" is the proper one to use. It is shorter than "one or more of the Convention rights" and is preferable in drafting terms and a more natural formulation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene again? I am very grateful to him for his courtesy. It may be shorter than "one or more of the Convention rights", but it is no shorter than "the Convention rights", which is what the amendment proposes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is arithmetically and grammatically correct since the definite and the indefinite article in the English language are each one word and I understand that. We have thought quite carefully about the problems that have been identified, real or apparent, by the noble and learned Lord and we have simply come to the conclusion that "a Convention right" properly describes what we are looking for as regards the background to the courts' consideration. We fully understand that balance is what the courts will have to find. I reiterate our absolute confidence in the ability of the courts to carry out that balancing. We suggest that the formulation we have come to after a great deal of
1298
thought, following the noble and learned Lord's interventions, is about right. I hope that he might think that on this occasion we may have done the right thing.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the phrase "one or more of the Convention rights" occurs frequently in this Bill and in the government amendments. They have been grouped together to amend all of them. None of them needed amendment except as regards Clause 6. In the other amendment the phrase "one or more" was perfectly correct. It is perfectly correct in Clause 4 where the instant amendment is designed to correct the language.
I was concerned with Clause 6, which was the only one where the phrase was wrong. I do not believe that the Government are to be blamed harshly. Having found a phrase which worked elsewhere, they assumed that it would be right for Clause 6. It is not. Clause 6 says that a public authority acts illegally if its act is in contravention of one or more of the convention rights. The word that is objectionable is "one". It directs the attention to one convention right irrespective of the fact that there may be another convention right which out-balances it.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said several times and quite categorically that a balancing act was required. I gave as an example in Committee the BBC, which is unquestionably a public authority, being alleged to have infringed a person's right to privacy for himself or his family. The BBC might well say, "Even if we have, it is justified by the right to free expression." The balancing act will then take place, the court deciding where the public interest indicates either that Article 10 (free expression) or Article 8 (privacy) should be preponderant. But the Bill as drafted does not secure that because if Article 8 alone is infringed, an illegal act has been committed.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, in an extremely ingenious—and perhaps I may say convoluted—argument tried to get round it. He pointed to Article 8(2) which states that the right to privacy shall not be to the detriment of any other person's rights. He said that any other person's rights included the right to freedom of expression under Article 10; in other words, that argument imports the immunity of Article 10 into the very heart of Article 8; it is incorporated in paragraph (2). It means that if an act of invasion of privacy is expressed, as it is likely to be, either in words or pictures, there is a complete answer. There is no right to privacy at all; it is automatically expunged by the importation of Article 10 into Article 8(2). That really will not do. Any judge who interpreted a measure designed to protect human rights in that way would have his wig taken off and his head examined. It is no way to construe such a piece of legislation as this.
Look what is done instead. The mischief aimed at is the contravention of one or more convention rights. What is substituted is "a Convention right". But "a" and "one" mean precisely the same thing in this context. One has only to think of this as a European code. In both French and German one word translates both "a" and "one".

1299
The noble Lord floated the idea of "a Convention right" in Committee. I had no answer although I had been promised consideration, with the result that on 3rd December—about a fortnight after Committee stage—a well informed leader writer in The Times, who had obviously followed this Bill very closely, wrote the following words:
"… Clause 6 … makes it 'unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the Convention rights'. This wording already gives cause for concern. The phrase 'one or more' could invite a court judgment based on only one of the rights laid down in the Convention … We accept that this is not the intention of Lord Irvine, who insists that the courts will be required to give freedom of expression 'its due high value'. But the Government has yet to accept Lord Simon of Glaisdale's amendment removing this ambiguity. It should do so".
They have not done so. They substituted the word "a" for "one" which does not remove the ambiguity". In view of the fact that I had heard nothing from the Government and in view of that article, on the following day, the 4th December, I wrote pointing out why "a" was as objectionable as "one". I had no answer to that other than a very polite formal acknowledgment from the Secretary to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, I had no answer at all until Wednesday, 14th January, some seven weeks after I had written, when a long letter from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, arrived setting out the case which he has made at the Dispatch Box. Unfortunately, that reached me only late on Wednesday, the letter being dated that day. I had commitments on Thursday and the weekend and was unable to ask to be allowed to put the point why the proposed government amendments were wrong.
To allow that long lapse of time without an answer and for an answer to arrive only one working day and one weekend before Report stage seems to me to be an extraordinary way to conduct business.
The odd feature is that not only do the Government amendments to Clause 6 where the Bill is wrong perpetuate the error—because "a" is the same as "one"—but it alters the expression "one or more of the Convention rights" in other places where it is absolutely the correct expression. Clause 4 deals with a court declaration of incompatibility with one or more convention rights, and that is absolutely right.
The declaration of incompatibility is not freestanding. It leads to a remedial order. The Minister drawing up a remedial order will not want to know whether "a" or "one" convention right has been infringed, but how many and which ones. So, "one or more" then is right, and "a" wrong. What are we to do then? It is difficult not to suggest that that painful inability of the Government to accept any amendments to their Bill, except by their own hand, is pathological—psychopathology politics.
If I have convinced, as I hope I have, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that his amendment to Clause 6 is wrong, and that my amendment is right, and that his amendment to Clause 4 is wrong, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment and to allow mine to pass. If he feels, with all the pressure of the Government behind
1300
him, that he cannot do that, he should withdraw all his amendments, and I will withdraw mine. That would give us an opportunity to discuss the matter thoroughly again before Third Reading. In conclusion, I must apologise for the state of my voice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened to the amendment. One owes a duty of frankness to the House. For the life of me, I cannot see what practical difference it makes if you have "one or more" convention rights, or, "a" convention right. I just do not understand what has been said. I say that with deference to the noble and learned Lord who is far more intelligent than I can ever become.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will welcome my support, but I would give it to him from, perhaps, a little experience of trying to implement this sort of legislation—at least a convention similar to the one with which the Bill is concerned. He is talking about an exercise in balancing which may have to be done between two different articles of the convention. The same thing applies when dealing with a communication under the international convention where there are conflicting articles similar to those which have been mentioned in the debate. The same exercise has to occur.
A court in this country attempting to apply Clause 4, as it currently is, or, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have it amended, is bound to try to carry out a balancing exercise. Even if initially just one of the articles concerned is raised by one of the parties before the court, if there is a conflict with another of those articles, I have little doubt that the other party will raise that conflict. Even if it does not, any court that knows the convention which it is bound to apply will be aware that there is more than one article which is binding upon it, and it will be aware of a possible conflict, even of its own motion. Therefore, it will have to carry out the balancing exercise. It is a balancing exercise which both the European Court and the committee upon which I sit have for some time been demonstrating.
I remember doing so last summer in a case in relation to some French legislation where the two articles that we have currently at the forefront of our minds were being looked at in conjunction under the international convention. A balance had to be struck. That is what the courts in this country are being invited to do. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams, says that it will be easier to direct their minds down that path by doing it according to the wording that he now puts forward, then I will support him. I want to make it as easy as possible for the courts to do the balancing exercise; to know that they have to do the balancing exercise; and to follow the example of those tribunals elsewhere which have already been doing the balancing exercise for some time. I therefore give him my support for what it is worth.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for that contribution from the noble Viscount

1301
who, after all, will have to grapple with these practical problems in the future. I have a sneaking sympathy for the robust approach adopted, as usual, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. On reflection, the noble and learned Lord may think that he has been uncharacteristically acerbic in complaining about the explanation given to him.
I wrote to the noble and learned Lord fully in a three-page letter on 14th January, which gives ample time for consideration for a Report stage on 19th January. The letter included this paragraph:
"I thought you would like to know that your amendment has occasioned a good deal of thought within the Government, and we have decided to table our own amendments in response to it. I attach a copy of these".
That lengthy letter concluded:
"I am sorry to have written at such length. This is a difficult issue. and I wanted to give a full explanation of our reasoning".
I do not believe that that, in all conscience, exhibits any symptoms of a pathological or a psychopathological condition on my part or on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said. As I said earlier, we discussed things carefully. When we came to our conclusion the letter was delivered to the noble and learned Lord last Wednesday. I was not to know—pathologically or psychopathologically—that he might have had other things to occupy his attention on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
The noble and learned Lord might agree with me that he has been unduly and unfairly harsh. It is self evident—I say it, and I almost said, "for the last time", but no one is that fortunate—that this point will involve a balancing exercise. Article 8.1 and 8.2 will not just have to be balanced internally, they will have to be balanced, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told our friends and colleagues in the media, with Article 10. They will have to be balanced—to take up an implied point put by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—with the question of a right to a fair trial. There may be many circumstances with which he and I are well familiar in practice over the years where a fair criminal trial for one person may well involve an infringement of someone else's private confidences or family life. That is a commonplace that we all know.
There is nothing difficult about the balancing in principle. It will be an anxious task for the courts to carry out. We believe that we have the formulation right. I respectfully commend our amendments to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("one or more of the Convention rights") and insert ("a Convention right").
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("one or more of the Convention rights") and insert ("a Convention right").
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("one or more of the Convention rights") and insert ("a Convention right").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("as a court of criminal appeal") and insert ("otherwise than as a trial court").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, tabled an amendment which would have conferred on the High Court of Justiciary, sitting as a trial court, the competence to make a declaration that a provision of primary or secondary legislation was incompatible with one or more of the convention rights.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained that it was not the intention that any such power should be conferred on judges who preside over criminal trials. The noble and learned Lord's amendment, as well as concerns expressed separately by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, caused the Government to look again at the provision. As currently drafted, the provision would prevent the High Court of Justiciary from making declarations of incompatibility when considering applications to the nobile officium. That is not the Government's intention which is, as I have explained, only to prevent judges presiding over criminal trials from making such declarations. Amendment No. 17 accordingly provides that such declarations may be made by the High Court of Justiciary, except when it is sitting as a trial court. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon>: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment, which meets in part the matter I raised in Committee. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the precedent of meeting my amendment with a government amendment is one which he would be well advised to follow in relation to a matter which we discussed earlier.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I was among those who asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider the matter again. I, too, am grateful for the amendment which is tendered. It is an important amendment. It is not commonly appreciated that there is a complete separation between the civil and criminal courts in Scotland. Judicial review as practised in Scotland extends in the civil courts to matters of a civil nature. Without the amendment, it would be difficult for the High Court of Justiciary in all its forms to cover the various situations in which questions of incompatibility might arise. I am particularly grateful for the amendment, therefore, because it will give considerable importance to the way in which criminal jurisdiction in Scotland will develop in the light of the provisions of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—

("(f) in Jersey, the Royal Court or the Court of Appeal;

(g) in Guernsey, the Royal Court or the Court of Appeal;

(h) in the Isle of Man, the High Court.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 68 and 69. The purpose of the amendments is to incorporate convention rights into the laws of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Perhaps I may give a brief background. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man enjoy a unique status as dependencies of the Crown. Although they have their own legislative assemblies and by long-established convention are responsible for the regulation of their own domestic affairs, including taxation, the United Kingdom has ultimate responsibility for their good government and is responsible for their defence and foreign relations. Citizens of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are British citizens.
I turn to the power to legislate for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Constitutionally, there is nothing to prevent the United Kingdom Parliament from legislating for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In 1973, the Royal Commission on the Constitution (Cmnd 5460) concluded that,
"Parliament has power to legislate for the Islands and that, in some matter at least, the exercise of this power is not dependent on the Islands' consent being given. It has, however, been the practice not to legislate for the Islands without their consent on matters which are of purely domestic concern to them. There has been strict adherence to the practice over a very long period, and it is in this sense that it can be said that a constitutional convention has been established whereby Parliament does not legislate for the Islands without their consent on domestic matters".
However, the convention is limited when an international obligation—for example, incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights—is at issue.
The Royal Commission stated, at Paragraph 1472; that,
"despite the existence of the convention, Parliament does have power to legislate for the Islands without their consent on any matter in order to give effect to an international agreement".
It states at Paragraph 1473:
"in the eyes of the courts, Parliament has a paramount power to legislate for the Islands in any circumstances, and we have proceeded on this assumption … But if, exceptionally, circumstances should demand the application to the Islands without their consent of measures of a kind hitherto regarded as domestic, then Parliament would, in our view, have the power to enact the necessary legislation".
I apologise for having quoted from that document, but it is important to be clear that one is acting in accordance with constitutional convention in a matter of this kind. I submit that bringing convention rights home to British citizens of the islands is an exceptional circumstance, so that they may obtain legal redress in the courts of the islands.
I turn briefly to what the precedents show. The power to legislate for the islands has been exercised in the past. For example, the Extradition Act 1989 is extended to
1304
the Channel Islands as if they were part of the United Kingdom. Prerogative powers have also been exercised in relation to the Channel Islands without prior request for such exercise; for example, the prerogative of mercy and the Court of Appeal (Channel Islands) Order 1949. Similar powers have been exercised in relation to the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man Act 1979 gives effect to an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Isle of Man by which both countries have been treated as a single area for the purposes of value added tax and car tax. In 1967 the United Kingdom Parliament imposed upon the Isle of Man the Marine Broadcasting (Offences) Act by statutory instrument outlawing broadcasting from marine structures within the British islands and the contiguous sea areas.
I turn to the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights since that is an important and relevant matter. Under Article 1 of the convention, the Government have an obligation directly to secure to everyone respect for their convention rights in the territories for which the Government have responsibility, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In the inter-state case of Ireland v. United Kingdom in 1978, the European Court of Human Rights observed:
"By substituting the words 'shall secure' for the s ords 'undertake to secure' in the text of Article 1, the drafters of the Convention also intended to make it clear that the rights and freedoms set out in Section I would be directly secured to anyone within the jurisdiction of the Contracted States".
Although in the case of Gillow v. United Kingdom in 1989, which related to regulations preventing foreigners from occupying property they owned in Guernsey, the British Government initially stated that they had not extended Article 1 of the European Convention to Guernsey, the matter was rectified and the Government wrote to the European Commission in February 1988 confirming that Article 1 had been extended to the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey. Similarly, the European Court rejected the argument in the Tyrer case in 1978, concerning the practice of birching in the Isle of Man, that the special position of the Isle of Man could justify a difference in the application and enjoyment of convention rights to the Isle of Man.
In Written Answers on 12th January 1998 the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, confirmed the obligation of the UK Government to ensuring that the Crown dependencies comply with the European Convention. He also confirmed that at present the courts in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not required or authorised directly to provide remedies for breaches of the convention.
Finally, I turn to the discrimination in relation to legal remedies which will arise if the amendments, or something like them, are not enacted. If British citizens and others living and working in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are excluded from the benefits of the Bill, that itself will provide grounds for complaint under the convention of unfair discrimination in relation to legal remedies. In the Belgian Linguistic case (No. 2) in 1968, the European Court explained how Article 14 of the convention—the non-discrimination guarantee—applies with an example concerning state action in

1305
relation to the scope of remedies before domestic courts under Article 6. The court said that it would violate Article 6 read with Article 14,
"were [a state] to debar certain persons from these remedies without a legitimate reason while making them available to others in respect of the same type of actions".
There seems no legitimate reason to exclude the inhabitants of the islands from the benefits of incorporation. Arguments to that effect by successive British governments have never succeeded in Strasbourg in previous cases. In the Tyrer case, a submission that the special position of the Isle of Man could justify a difference in the application and enjoyment of convention rights was rejected. The European Court said:
"Historically, geographically and culturally, the island has always been included in the European family of nations and must be regarded as sharing fully that 'common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and a rule of law' to which the Preamble of the Convention refers … Article 63 was primarily designed to meet the fact that, when the Convention was drafted, there were still certain colonial territories whose state of civilisation did not, it was thought, permit the full application of the Convention".
Therefore, it is quite clear that the European Court has regarded those islands as falling within the area of responsibility of this country in a different way from other, as it were, colonial territories.
I hope that I have explained that there is no constitutional barrier to the extension of the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. For Parliament to fail to exercise that power, while incorporating the convention rights into UK law, would clearly expose the Government to possible action under the convention for failure to provide the citizens of those islands with the same remedies as other British citizens would enjoy once the process of incorporation is complete.
Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendments. I add two points only. First, unless Clause 22 is amended, there will be no power for this Government or a future government to do so except by enacting further primary legislation. That seems to me to be clumsy and ineffectual as a position.
Secondly, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were able to indicate that the Government required further time to take soundings on this matter, I would understand that position, provided that we may return to the matter on Third Reading; otherwise it seems to me that we shall be failing properly to incorporate the convention in areas for which we are responsible and we shall expose this country to avoidable international proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has raised a delicate and uncertain constitutional point. I speak as one who, like other Members of your Lordships' House—in particular in recent times my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Elton—has had responsibility for watching the interests of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man while serving in the Home Office.
1306
I must say that we must be very careful because, although from time to time the United Kingdom Parliament legislates on those independent territories under the Crown, they do so only when they have the agreements of the parliaments of those territories. Of course, Her Majesty has a direct responsibility for them but, by tradition, her Prime Minister and other Members of her government have been very careful not to impose obligations upon them.
I should be grateful if, in answering these amendments—and I believe it is to be the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, which gives one great pleasure—the Minister will tell the House what consultation there has been with the Tynwald and the parliaments of Guernsey and Jersey. If they want to be aligned with the United Kingdom, of which they are not part, on these matters, so be it. But we must be very careful about it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as a layman and someone who has never been remotely anywhere near government, I am most hesitant to intervene. But it seems to me that it would take us down a very slippery slope if this quartet of amendments—in particular Amendment No. 69 which is the substantive amendment—were accepted.
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are extremely ancient jurisdictions. They are not and never have been part of the United Kingdom and they have no representation whatever at Westminster. Therefore, whatever the 'Royal Commission may have declared in 1973, it is surely quite wrong to interfere in their internal affairs unless there is some gross injustice crying out to be remedied, which is certainly not the case here.
Many years ago, those territories agreed of their own free will—and that is the important point—to be bound by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. That surely should be enough to satisfy any reasonable person.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I should like to ask not only the Government but also the noble Lord, Lord Lester, when he comes to respond, what consultations have taken place with the various island governments responsible in this regard.
The noble Lord argued that the consent of the islands is not necessary. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, expressed the matter much more effectively when he said that even if, in strict law, their consent was not necessary, in all humanity they should be consulted and their consent should be obtained.
I have one further question for the noble Lord which relates to the first amendment in this group; namely, Amendment No. 18. As I understand it, that relates to the various courts of appeal in the three territories mentioned. Am I right to understand that it would allow, for example, the court of appeal in Guernsey to make a declaration of incompatibility in relation to legislation coming from this Parliament? Would it be possible for

1307
the court of appeal in Guernsey to say that legislation relating to, for example, the outlawing of off-shore trusts, something which we have been promised by this Government, could be in breach of their human rights? I should like an answer on that point from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and also from the noble Lord who speaks for the Government on this occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a diplomatic deafness overtook me when the noble Lord directed his question, I think it was, to the noble Lord, Lord Lester; but I probably misheard.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for the way in which he has moved the amendment. He has correctly identified, as have other noble Lords, the constitutional position of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is a fact that there is a great reservoir of ignorance about the true constitutional arrangements between the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and latterly the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and now I—I am sorry, my amnesia was unintended but I forgot the noble Lord, Lord Elton—have all had responsibility for dealing with the Channel Islands. The fact is that they are independent jurisdictions and are extremely and understandably astute that their interests be properly considered; that they be properly consulted; and that every due regard be given to their views. Dare I say, in this evening's context, that that is one of their human rights?
Generally speaking, I do not disagree with the constitutional analysis put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The Crown is ultimately—and I stress the word ultimately—responsible for the good government of the islands. We have full power in principle to legislate for the islands, but it is a fact that it would be contrary to constitutional conventions to which all governments of whatever political complexion have adhered for the power to be used in the ordinary course of events without the agreement of the island governments. I respectfully take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but they have their own systems of government and are not represented at Westminster in matters which are entirely domestic to the islands. In extremis, we could take that power but we do not regard these circumstances as appropriate for the power to be taken. We prefer to work by co-operation, as did previous governments.
Enabling provisions are included in published Bills only after full consultation with the island governments. Similarly, any orders that the islands subsequently agree should he made are drafted in consultation with the island authorities. Many noble Lords asked, perfectly properly, whether Her Majesty's Government had consulted with the appropriate island governments. The answer is an unambiguous yes. All three stated categorically that they did not wish the Human Rights Bill to be extended to them in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. All of them said no, and they were quite categoric in that respect.
1308
I respectfully suggest that we ought not to force different arrangements upon them when they have expressed themselves so firmly.
However, it is right that the Isle of Man authorities have announced their intention to introduce insular legislation. I say that knowing that I might be derided but I believe it to be the correct adjective. That insular legislation—it being an island, after all—would give effect to the convention on the islands. They have taken that view. The authorities in the Channel Islands do not intend to take that step for the present, but it is not ruled out for the future.
The Government's position is quite plain. We have our obligations. We have our obligations under the convention. We have consulted the islands fully and have our obligations to consider their views. We have done so, and have come to the conclusion that we ought not to accede to the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
I am most grateful for the support expressed from various quarters of your Lordships' House. We are dealing with delicate matters and there are sensibilities involved which must properly be attended to and taken into consideration. We believe that the stance we have adopted is the correct one, bearing in mind the conventional history of the relationships between the United Kingdom and three islands which have their own distinct traditions, their own separate views and their own discrete legislatures.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could deal with one matter that I raised. I refer to the problem that if we give remedies to British citizens in the UK but do not give the same remedies to British citizens living in the Isle of Man or in the Channel Islands on the basis of the courts' case law, which I quoted all too extensively, we will be in breach of Article 14 of the convention, read with Article 6, for discriminating in the provision of remedies in the determination of convention rights. The course that I take will depend very much on the answer that I receive to that question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, with the greatest of respect we do not accept that argument because there is no discrimination: the jurisdictions are different. Therefore, one is not comparing like with like. We do not believe that we would be in default of our Article 14 obligations. I fully recognise the noble Lord's interest in these different jurisdictions, especially recently in the Isle of Man. Therefore, I dare say it is a kind of gratification to him to know that the Isle of Man has decided to legislate internally on the lines that I suggested.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will answer one further question. Does he agree that the arguments that have been deployed in response to the amendments—all of which I agree with wholeheartedly—would also be pertinent to the Scottish amendments that we discussed earlier on the Church and those which are to follow? Surely, the arguments are exactly the same.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the arguments are not remotely the same. Indeed, they are utterly distinct. One is to do with the 1922 settlement of the Church of Scotland which is an Act of Parliament. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said—and he is always right on these occasions—that remains wholly intact. The question of introducing convention rights into the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Sark, Brechou and Jersey has nothing at all to do with the position of the Church of Scotland. I venture to suggest that, were I to ask the wife of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who is an Elder of the Church of Scotland, whether she lays awake at night worrying about the position of the Channel Islands and whether to have any necessary or sensible connection with them, I think that the answer would be, no.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important debate. My starting point is that of course there should be effective consultation. I am glad to hear that there has been. I am also glad to hear that the authorities in the Isle of Man have shifted in the way outlined. However, the Channel Islands remain. They have already caused this country to be held to be in breach of the convention in one case. When one is talking about fundamental human rights and freedoms anchored in an international treaty where the UK has international responsibility for breaches of the rights of British citizens in the Channel Islands, as well as in the Isle of Man, I can see no answer to the point that there is a difference of treatment made in the protection of access to courts for enforcing convention rights as between the islands and the mainland.
I turn now to the arguments about distinct traditions and local circumstances. This is an argument which one has heard time and again in the human rights field in this country and beyond. Indeed, we heard that argument in Northern Ireland in the Dudgeon case where the UK was forced to change the criminal law so as to give equality of treatment to homosexuals. We had the same argument with regard to corporal punishment in Scotland; namely, that there was a different tradition there. In each case the UK Parliament was compelled to legislate. and the same would apply to breaches in the Channel Islands.
I turn now to the courts in the Channel Islands which, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would not have the power under my amendments to strike down Acts of the Westminster Parliament, any more than the Scottish courts will have the power to do so under the devolution legislation. I have not heard any arguments to suggest that those courts are not capable of providing effective remedies for breaches of the convention. As the rights of British citizens are at stake, it seems to me that the same rights and obligations should apply across the mainland and the offshore islands.
I have quoted the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the late Lord Kilbrandon indicating that where an international agreement is concerned special considerations are involved. It is in respect for the
1310
citizens of those islands, and not through any disrespect to them, that I believe they should have equal protection. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 176.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Newby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Brookes, L.

Ogmore

Calverley, L.

Razzall

Carlisle, E.

Redesdale, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thurso, V.

Ludford, B.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

McNally, L

Tordoff, L

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde. B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Desai. L

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ashboume, L.

Donegall, M.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bemers, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Biddulph, L.

Elton. L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Parkside. L

Blaker, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Blatch, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blease, L.

Fookes, B.

Borne, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brentford, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gregson, L.

Burlison, L.

Grenfell, L.

Burnham, L.

Haddington, E.

Cadman, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hardie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carnock. L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Haskel, L. (Teller.]

Chandos, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hayman, B.

Chesham, L.

Hemphill. L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Henley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Coleraine, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L

Colville of Culross. V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Colwyn, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Home, E.

Courtown, E.

Hooper, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Cross, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hoyle, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

1311

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Peston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hylton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Puttnam, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Chancellor.]

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

IsIwyn, L.

Rawlings, B.

Jay of Paddington. B.

Rea, L.

Jeger, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rennell, L.

Jenkins of Putney,

Renton, L.

L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Kennet, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kilbracken, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Kingsland, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Selborne, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Sewel, L.

Leigh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Shepherd, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon, V.

Longford, E.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Luke, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Marlesford, L.

Stallard, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stewartby, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mersey, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Swinfen, L.

Molloy, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monoro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vivian, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Waterford, M.

Newall, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Nicol, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wharton, B.

Northbrook, L.

Whitty. L.

Northesk, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Orme, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Winston, L.

Perth, E.

Young, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7. 38 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage does not begin again before 8.38 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may ask how late we are expected to sit this evening.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the answer is that we do not know at this stage.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may ask how soon the noble Lord will know.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, when we adjourn depends to a large extent on your Lordships. At this stage we cannot give any indication.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lloyds TSB Bill [H.L.]]
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Since the merger between the TSB Group and Lloyds Bank in December 1995, the banking activities of the two organisations have been carried on separately. The need to have a Private Bill arises out of the fact that the bank may not transfer a customer's money to another body without the consent of the customer. Only through this means can a bank's operations be merged without going through the massive administrative task and the uncertainty of seeking the agreement of each customer individually in order to transfer his or her account from one entity to another. In this way, and in this particular case, some 8 million customers are also therefore spared the accompanying inconvenience. This is the usual and recognised way of dealing with this particular task. An average of one bank Bill each parliamentary Session attests to that. However, it must be said that usually such Bills, like most Private Bills, pass through all their stages without discussion.
Nevertheless, the Lloyds TSB Bill has been making steady progress through this House since its first Reading in January last year and its Second Reading in March last year. At Second Reading we had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Then, following the general election and the Summer Recess, the Unopposed Bill Committee stage took place on 27th November last year.
As some noble Lords may be aware, the Lloyds TSB Group undertook exhaustive and free-ranging discussions about its future relationship with the Banking Insurance and Finance Union (BIFU) and the Lloyds TSB Union, the LTU. It did so as soon as the merger was announced. It successfully concluded agreements with both BIFU and the LTU to the satisfaction of each of the parties during last year's Summer Recess.
The most significant and relevant features of those agreements were: to give equal recognition rights to BIFU and the LTU up to the same level in both TSB and Lloyds banks; to reaffirm that compulsory redundancy would continue to be very much a policy of last resort; to provide improvements when harmonising terms and conditions of contracts of employment and guarantees as to how the new terms will apply to individual members of staff; further, to agree a process for proposed branch reductions and to reaffirm the assurances previously given regarding the TSB Bank in Scotland.
Certain questions were also raised at earlier stages of the Bill in regard to pensions. The Bill does not have an impact in any way upon any of the schemes within the Lloyds TSB Group. Nevertheless, I am assured that the Lloyds TSB Group takes its responsibilities in this area most seriously. In particular, the schemes in the group are well-funded and provide an excellent package of benefits to pensioners. In addition to strength of funding, the schemes enjoy a comprehensive framework of statutory, regulatory and fiduciary safeguards for their

1313
beneficiaries which are in line with best practice among major corporate pension schemes throughout the United Kingdom. Against the background of the agreements reached with the unions and the assurances given to them, the unions withdrew their petitions against the Bill, which enabled us to have an unopposed Committee stage.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, wishes to raise again the issue of pensions, albeit at this very late stage. Unfortunately, I have been unable to ascertain the concerns of my noble friend Lord Northbrook, but I look forward with interest to hearing the remarks of both noble Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, while I in broad terms welcome this Bill and the potential benefits to shareholders and customers of Lloyds and TSB, I should like briefly, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to express my concern for the pension rights of the ex-employees of TSB, Hill Samuel and the other companies whose pension funds were amalgamated into the TSB group pension scheme, which currently has a large surplus.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, will be elaborating on the concerns of the TSB Hill Samuel Action Group, representing those ex-employees. The group has over 50,000 members, of whom, at the date of the last accounts, more than 20,000 were current employees; 20,000 were deferred members; and under 9,000 were pensioners.
The Bill draws reference to the,
"transfer to, and vesting in, Lloyds … of the undertakings of TSB … and Hill Samuel".
In essence, I would like to see improved safeguards being put in place to ensure that the surplus pension assets in the TSB pension scheme are used to improve the benefits of existing and former members to the maximum level permitted by Inland Revenue requirements. I was encouraged by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who said that Lloyds TSB takes its pension responsibilities very seriously.
There has been a certain amount of press coverage, citing TSB and Noble Lowndes as mis-selling pensions. I also understand that Noble Lowndes advised some of the group's redundant employees of their entitlements, and that they were not happy with the quality of that advice. I should like to know to what extent such cases have been resolved by Lloyds TSB.
In conclusion, I reaffirm my support for the Bill, but hope that my concerns for the rights of the pensioners can be addressed when the undertakings of TSB and Hill Samuel are "transferred to, and vested in", Lloyds.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for her detailed explanation of the background to the Bill. I seek to express some of the concerns of the TSB Hill Samuel Action Group, whose
1314
members are ex-employees of the TSB, Hill Samuel or other companies whose pension funds have been amalgamated into the TSB group pension scheme. They are not opposed in principle to the Lloyds TSB Bill. They recognise that it will bring substantial benefits to the promoter. However, they believe that, in view of those benefits, certain anomalies in the protection available to pensioners and in the treatment of redundant and other ex-employees must be remedied by the promoter before the Bill is passed. In default of such remedy, they will petition the Bill in another place.
As the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has already given details of the current membership of the TSB group pension scheme, I should like to focus on the other ex-employees transferred out of the scheme on terms which, at least with hindsight, were insufficiently generous, so contributing to the large surplus in the fund. From the figures it is apparent that large numbers of employees do not remain for long enough to reach the minimum pensionable age of 50. In view of the continuing staff reductions in the retail banking sector, and at Lloyds TSB in particular, the number of deferred members of the pension scheme can be expected to increase, both in absolute and relative terms. Therefore, bearing in mind that the employees of the Trustee Savings Bank were in many cases relatively lowly paid, that many older pensioners have had their entitlements eroded by inflation and that many of the members will have left before pensionable age, frequently through being made redundant, a significant proportion of the members of the scheme are, or will be, receiving relatively low incomes.
As has been mentioned, there is a substantial surplus in the TSB group pension scheme of at least £850 million, or 48 per cent., at the date of the last accounts, enabling the employer to anticipate a contribution holiday until the year 2015.
In detail, the action group has two major and interrelated concerns: protection of potential benefits out of the fund surplus for the actual and deferred pensioners and equity in distribution to the beneficiaries in general and the poorest pensioners in particular.
As regards the first issue, the action group is concerned about what will happen if there are future mergers between the TSB scheme and other, less well-funded schemes, as well as the consequences of the present planned merger of the undertakings of Lloyds Bank, TSB and Hill Samuel, particularly as the potential cost to the fund of remedying anomalies does not seem to have been addressed. The action group believes that Clause 8 of the Bill, which makes provision for retirement benefit schemes, does not provide sufficient protection for the interests of the members. The rules of the TSB scheme offer no protection if there is alteration to the benefits payable to the members without their consent, to the detriment of those members. Similarly there is no provision that would even prevent the ending of the TSB scheme. The action group believes that protection should be incorporated into the documents which constitute the TSB scheme to ensure that the interests of present and future pensioners are unaffected

1315
by the consequences of the proposed merger. Such protection is needed before the Bill is allowed to pass into law.
The action group is anxious to ensure that the TSB scheme funds should not be used to pay benefits to the members or former members of other pension schemes operated by merged banks which might follow an amalgamation of the schemes. The action group is also determined to ensure that such protection should be extended to any future merger proposed by Lloyds TSB. It is also concerned that no part of the TSB scheme funds should be returned to Lloyds following any winding up of the scheme after the transfers of operations contemplated in the Bill. For these reasons, the action group believes that adequate safeguards should be put in place to ensure that the surplus assets in the TSB scheme are used to improve the benefits of the existing and former members to the maximum levels permitted by Inland Revenue requirements, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord St. John.
The action group is particularly concerned to ensure effective protection of the pension fund surplus. It understands that in the past few years TSB has transferred such surplus to companies acquiring its non-core subsidiaries so that they in turn can enjoy contribution holidays in respect of the staff transferred. It believes that it has not received satisfactory explanations of the numbers of and reasons for several of these transfers which would persuade them that the pension fund surplus was reasonably transferred without detriment to the members.
Moving on to the action group's second major concern, equity in distribution to beneficiaries in general and to poorest pensioners in particular, the action group is particularly concerned by the unsatisfactory explanations it received after it queried apparently unfair and unequal treatment of different groups and categories of pensioners. On the one hand, it is evident from the Lloyds TSB 1996 accounts that certain favoured individuals received substantial exceptional enhancements to their pension entitlements. On the other hand, some pensioners are receiving income support. The action group requires full details of all anomalies for the benefit of all the individuals affected, and not just for those lucky or well enough advised to have discovered discrepancies operating to their own disadvantage. The action group therefore seeks explanations of the numbers of individuals and amounts involved. Without a satisfactory explanation, confirmation will be sought in the other place that all such anomalies have been rectified.
We are not talking about a rerun of the Maxwell situation. However, the concerns of the action group are serious and require a more detailed and satisfactory response than has hitherto been given. If that does not happen, I anticipate further reaction to the Bill in another place.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have listened with interest to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and I feel sure that the promoters and the company will read with care what has been said in the course of the debate this evening. I must reiterate
1316
that the pension schemes are not affected by the Bill and therefore it is not my task this evening to go into the intricacies of the schemes and their surpluses. I fully appreciate that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, felt it important and convenient to take advantage of Third Reading to air this issue. However, as I understand it, there is nothing special about this case; it is no different from any other merger of any two companies and their pension schemes. The schemes enjoy a comprehensive framework of statutory, regulatory and fiduciary safeguards, which cannot be avoided. They were put in place as a result of the Pensions Act 1995, which followed the Goode Committee Report. The beneficiaries benefit in this way in line with best practice among all major corporate pension schemes in this country. To go further and to make wider or more general changes, as has been requested, would be unprecedented and would single out these schemes compared to all other corporate schemes, when the Bill has no impact on them at all.
The unions are content with the situation. While the promoters would be prepared to consider these concerns, I believe the concerns are of a general nature and are more properly addressed to the Government. It is ironic that the Hill Samuel scheme, which was merged with the TSB scheme in 1991, is now considerably better funded as a result.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Would the noble Baroness not agree that, despite what she says, this Bill has no connection with the pension schemes and that the Bill makes specific reference in Clause 3 for the transfer to and the vesting in Lloyds of the undertakings of TSB and Hill Samuel? The reference to the undertakings is surely inclusive of the pension surplus of the TSB pension fund.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, the reference to transfer dates in the Bill is simply a matter of timing and does not in fact affect the contents of the pension schemes or the details of the pension schemes.
Finally, I must reiterate something that I said at Second Reading, that the measure before us today provides simply for an internal reorganisation of the group which is designed to enable Lloyds TSB to get on with what it is good at doing: delivering long-term security and success for the benefit of all its customers and staff and, in doing this, and in seeing the merger through, this is the final full-stop, as it were, in your Lordships' House.
The Bill does go on to another place, where various concerns which may be within or without the terms of the Bill will no doubt be raised again, but I am most grateful to those of your Lordships who have participated in the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 22 minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.02 to 8.38 p.m.]

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 5 [Right of Crown to intervene]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3. line 23, after ("Crown,") insert—
("( ) a Scottish Minister, as defined by section 41(2) of the Scotland Act 1998,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the background to this amendment is the different procedures which will apply in Scotland for dealing on the one hand with an allegation that an Act of Parliament of this Parliament is in some way incompatible with convention rights, and the alternative situation where the argument is that an Act of a Scottish Parliament, once it comes into being, is so flawed.
As I have previously mentioned in discussing this Bill, it is quite possible to foresee the situation in the future where in dealing with a similar topic, for example in the field of law and order or education, a statutory provision in identical terms is enacted by this Parliament to that which is also enacted by the Scottish Parliament and forms part of an Act of that Parliament. Therefore it is quite possible to foresee the situation where a challenge is raised to the compatibility of such a provision with convention rights.
If the challenge to the United Kingdom Act of Parliament were to come first, then in terms of Clause 5 of the Bill a Minister of the Crown could apply to be joined as a party to the proceedings—assisted as a party to the proceedings, as I think we would describe it in Scotland—but the Bill would not allow a Minister of the Scottish Parliament to make such an application. Therefore there would be a possibility of a court in Scotland granting a declarator that the provision of the UK Parliament was incompatible with human rights in the knowledge that there was a similar provision in the Act of the Scottish Parliament which no Minister of the Scottish Executive would be in a position to defend.
In my respectful submission, it would be sensible to amend Clause 5 to allow for the possibility of a Scottish Minister as defined under the Scotland Bill—or the Scotland Act as it presumably will become—to join in such proceedings in a situation such as I have described. That is the purpose of this amendment, to preclude the
1318
possibility of a court deciding that the UK statute was incompatible without giving the Scottish Executive the right to be heard. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving this amendment. I hope that what I say will give assurance to him. Throughout all stages of the Bill the noble and learned Lord has been assiduous in raising all matters of proper concern to Scotland. The effect of the amendment which he proposes would be to entitle a Scottish Minister—that is, a Minister of the Scottish Parliament once it is established—to be joined in proceedings when a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility.
This amendment, therefore, raises two issues. The more general question is when, if at all, it is appropriate for one Bill, in this case the Human Rights Bill, to be amended to take account of provisions in another Bill, in this case the Scotland Bill, when neither of them has been enacted. There can be no definite answer to this question because it depends on the linkage between the two Bills. As for the relationship between this Bill and the Scotland Bill, I can assure your Lordships that we have been looking with care at how and where they interlink. There are several issues to address. The noble and learned Lord's amendment has picked out one possible issue but I think it would be premature to consider potential amendments while both Bills are in their first Chamber—in the case of this Bill, in your Lordships' House and in the case of the other Bill, the other place.
I think it would be more sensible to wait a while longer before tackling these questions. That will enable the eventual form of the respective Bills to be known with greater certainty. It will also enable us to consider the various possible amendments en bloc rather than considering them in isolation.
The other point concerns the specifics of this amendment. I can see that a case may arise where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility in respect of an Act of the Westminster Parliament which covers subject matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Bill. There, I agree, Scottish Ministers would clearly have an interest in the legislation at issue. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we will be giving serious consideration to this issue and to any other related issues but, as I have said, I think it is premature to address this type of amendment specifically today, although the noble and learned Lord is right to have called attention to it. The Human Rights Bill is ahead of the Scotland Bill in the overall parliamentary timetable, but the whole issue of amendments arising from the relationship between these Bills should perhaps more conveniently be taken as a package when both Bills, and in particular the Scotland Bill, are further forward. In the light of the assurance that I have given, I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and with the leave of

1319
the House, may I ask him: is he taking the point that my noble and learned friend has made? I quite see the problem that he is outlining, but it will be very difficult for the House when we get to the Scotland Bill, to remember all the points that have arisen and their context. They are very important points, as he has acknowledged. Is he taking the point that my noble and learned friend has made? Does he consider that something has to be done on this aspect, and will he be producing a solution for it in due course, or is he simply sidestepping the issue?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure it is quite apparent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that I was doing the opposite of sidestepping the issue. I notice that he is nodding his head with vigour. I was facing up to the issue and making it quite plain that this is a matter which we will have to address positively but at a later stage in the legislative programme of both Bills.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his constructive response. I can assure my noble friend that in the unlikely event of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor forgetting this point I will not be slow to remind him. On that basis I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Acts of public authorities]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("one or more of the Convention rights") and insert ("a Convention right").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 9, after ("include") insert ("a person listed in Schedule (Persons excluded from section 6) or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23 I shall, of course, be referring to the other amendments which are grouped with this one. I would like to start by making three general points. The first point is that my amendments are not in any sense party political issues. They arose because my attention was drawn to the whole issue of the definition of a public authority by the Christian Institute in Newcastle and whether indeed the Churches were defined as public authorities under the Bill. I am therefore very grateful for the support for my amendments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and from my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.
I have also had much support from other Members in all parts of the House. Indeed, in my experience—I have been in your Lordships' House for 26 years—I have
1320
never put down amendments which so many noble Lords have asked to sign. The list closed at the number four, with many more wishing to add their names. I have had letters giving general support to the amendments from the Primate of All England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Basil Hume, Dr. Jonathan Sacks from the Jewish Church, and Dr. McDonald from the Church of Scotland. I do not think that I have ever had more support from all parts of the House and from outside than I have had on these amendments.
The second point I wish to make—it has been a recurring theme throughout the debate—is that these amendments are not in any way against human rights. They are not against the principle of the Bill. I and my colleagues supported the Bill at Second Reading. There can be no question at all—I am sure I speak for all those who have supported the amendments—that we support religious freedom and religious tolerance. The purpose of the amendments is to maintain the status quo.
The third general point I wish to make concerns the timetabling of the Bill. All of us—on this occasion I think I speak on behalf of Christians in the House—and members of other faiths have been put into a very difficult position. Let us look at the timetabling. The Bill was published on 23rd October. The White Paper was published on 24th October. In my entire experience I have never known a White Paper on a Bill to be published after the publication of the Bill itself. This is a very serious point, as I hope the Government accept.
I say it is serious because I am not a lawyer. I am a lay person. But when the Bill becomes law it will affect all of us. What do lay people do on legislation? They look particularly at a White Paper—usually it is written in terms they can understand—to see what the Bill is about. We were unable to do so in this case. That is a gross dereliction of duty on behalf of the Government. I have never known it to happen before. Re-reading, in preparation for the debate today, the introduction of the White Paper, I now see that it first saw the light of day as a Labour Party paper. Of course the Labour Party was free before the general election to publish any papers it wished. I do not know to whom I should be addressing my remarks—I do not know whether it is the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who is to reply, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—but clearly the status of a party publication is very different from that of a government publication. To say that they consulted on a party publication is, if I may say so, really not good enough in the context of a very serious measure like this. That is the first difficulty into which we have all been put.
We had no definition of a public authority effectively until the Committee stage of the Bill. That seems to me unbelievable. I hope that the Government will answer the point. Did they consult when writing the White Paper over whether the Churches were to be classed as a public authority? My understanding is that no one recognised the point until the Committee stage of the Bill.
Let us remind ourselves what the White Paper says on this subject. Section 2.2. states:
"The definition of what constitutes a public authority is in wide terms. Examples of persons or organisations whose acts or omissions it is intended should he able to be challenged include central government (including executive agencies); local government; the police; immigration officers; prisons; courts and tribunals themselves; and, to the extent that they are exercising public functions, companies responsible for areas of activity which were previously within the public sector, such as the privatised utilities".
It is of enormous comfort, I am sure, to the Churches to be bracketed with privatised utilities. That is clearly where they fall, according to the Government. It is a very serious dereliction of duty on their part that the Government never made this clear in the White Paper. I say to myself, as an innocent party in all this, are they being disingenuous? Did they make a mistake? Is it deliberate? Is this an attempt to secularise society? I am bound to say to the Government that, as the debates have proceeded, that is what I believe is the intent behind all this. We are all being hoodwinked and the Government think we are too stupid to recognise what is happening. I find it very upsetting and disappointing.
We went through the Committee stage and then we had the Christmas Recess. A week later we come back to all this on Report. The Bill is almost through your Lordships' House before we can understand what the Government have in mind, let alone what we should be thinking about all this. It puts those of us who are not backed up by large staffs and who do not have unlimited amounts of time to attend to these matters in a very difficult position. Perhaps that is what is intended. I find it surprising if it really is.
The practical consequence is that we have not been able to debate this matter thoroughly until Report stage. I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon as the position in Scotland is somewhat worse than the position, as set out in Clause 6, for the other Churches. Clause 6, far from guaranteeing religious freedoms, makes them wide open to legal challenge. The public acts of Churches will be subject to the scrutiny of the courts in the same way as a government department or a privatised utility. What is absolutely certain is that it will create an enormous amount of uncertainty.
I turn now to my amendments. Amendment No. 23, which is concerned with the schedule, has the effect of keeping the status quo. Churches and denominations—this includes other non-Christian faiths—can continue to regulate their own affairs as they do at the present time. Public ceremonies such as marriage and internal disciplinary and theological matters are to be exempted from the convention. My second amendment concerns religious charities. Where a religious charity is acting in accordance with the religious or ethical principles set out in its trust deed, memorandum or articles of association, the charity is to be exempt from the convention. My third amendment concerns religious schools or colleges. Where a church school or other religious school or college is acting in accordance with the religious or ethical principles set out in its trust deed, memorandum or articles of association, the school or college should be exempt from the convention. The
1322
amendment also applies to church schools or colleges which receive state funding and also to such bodies in the private sector. Perhaps I may make it clear that where I refer to church schools or colleges I mean also those belonging to the Jewish faith and other faiths.
I can perhaps describe what I mean. I give the example of Church commissioners who own a shopping centre. They incorporate into the lease terms forbidding the sale of pornography on their premises. A newspaper vendor breaches the terms. The commissioners seek a court order that the vendor vacates the premises. In his defence the vendor cites his right to freedom of conscience and belief under Article 9, freedom of expression under Article 10 and the right not to be discriminated against under Article 14. He claims that the prohibition is not defensible and is merely an act of discrimination. What the Church believes as a matter of moral standards—that is, selling pornography—under the Bill will not be decided by the Church but by a judge. It is the secularisation of the Church's function.
Perhaps I may take the example of a Christian hospice committed to the care of the terminally ill and completely opposed to euthanasia. It is funded partly by grant aid from the local authority. It is the only hospice providing care for the terminally ill in the region. In providing care for its patients it is carrying out a public function. It is approached by an organisation which campaigns for the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. It wants to make a presentation in the hospice. The organisation wishes to recruit supporters. For all I know, it may be thinking of perhaps encouraging some of the inmates to support what it is doing. Because it does not believe in euthanasia, the hospice wishes to prevent this. What will happen is that the matter will go to the court and a judge will decide instead of the Church.
I turn to the case of a Church school. How many times have I heard in your Lordships' House the defence of the voluntary-aided Church schools, Jewish schools, or any schools which have a Church behind them. What happens if it is wished to appoint a head to the school. In the case of a Church of England school it is said that he or she should be a communicant member of the Church of England. Then along comes someone who says, "I have been a teacher for 20 years. My classes have always come out at the top of the league tables and of all the measurements for educational success. I am happily married and have a social work qualification. I know and love children, and happen to be a humanist". Instead of this appointment being decided by the school governors—who, as regards Church of England voluntary-aided schools, will be Church of England governors, with their beliefs—it will be decided by a judge.
Perhaps the House believes that that does not really matter. But when people wake up and find what is really going on, I believe that they will be in for a very great surprise. I am not suggesting, if the Bill becomes law, that the following morning all this will happen. Nevertheless, everything that I have quoted is quite possible. I believe that this is a very serious issue indeed for the country and for your Lordships' House.
In preparation for this debate I sought information on what happens on the continent of Europe. Now that Britain enjoys the presidency of the European Union, the Government have told us that they wish to be at the heart of Europe. So let us just look at what happens in Germany on these matters. As I understand it and as I have been advised, Germany has a written constitution. Its provisions on human rights include a general guarantee of freedom of religion. There are specific provisions covering religious corporations.
The main religious denominations have public law status, but they also have extensive religious rights that go with that status. They can even raise taxes on their own members. I am not suggesting that. Of course, there has not been the same kind of campaigning on issues like homosexual marriage and women priests as there has been in this country. But, under the German constitution, religious freedoms have been given to religious corporations and their position appears to be carefully entrenched. For instance, two decisions of the Constitutional Court in effect uphold a right to life for the unborn child. The European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated, but it is regarded as subsidiary to the German constitution.
Let us look at the position in Holland. Here again, it is perhaps less certain than it is in Germany, but it has some very real lessons for us. As my advisers have told me, once one has a Bill of Rights the whole situation takes off and is used by the courts in most unexpected ways. So, although I have quoted situations which might, and I believe will, apply in this country if the Bill becomes law unamended, it has been found in Holland that the new human rights laws have encroached where no one thought that they could. Family law is one example. In Germany human rights laws have even affected leases and tax laws as a result of the actions of the courts.
So one has to take as one's starting point the kind of situations which I believe could and will happen. The House should be under no illusion that there are organisations which will wait to test the law as soon as it becomes law. This is not some kind of academic exercise to see what is going to happen. We know perfectly well that organisations will be out to test the courts.
As a result, organisations and the Churches—not just the Church of England, although I speak as a practising member, and I know that on this occasion I speak for the Roman Catholic Church, the Free Churches, the Jewish Church and others—will have rights which they have taken for granted taken away from them.
Before we go down that path we should consider the role that the Churches have played in our history. But for the great Judaeo-Christian basis of our society, we would not be in the position we are in today. Those who talk so glibly about human rights should recognise the role that the Churches have played in upholding those human rights long before the convention was ever thought of.
Those who believe that the convention will stand as it is today should remember that when it was written in 1950 the world was a very different place. If I were a
1324
betting woman—which I am not—I would bet that those who wrote the convention in 1950 would be astonished by the issues that are now brought before the courts as human rights. When we debate this matter this evening we are not talking about what is going to happen in 1998 but what will happen in 2000, 2005, 2010 or 2020. It is very difficult for us to project ourselves forward to what may happen in the years ahead.
I believe that we have a duty to safeguard the beliefs that we hold dear and regard as part of our constitution and, in a very real sense, part of our rights. They are not against human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who unfortunately is not in his place, made the point very well when he said at the beginning of the debate that to be a member of the Church was not like belonging to the local tennis club. It is something quite different. It is a matter of faith and belief. It is not something for which one just signs up because one believes that one will enjoy an afternoon's entertainment. Therefore, I believe that it falls into a completely different category.
I have tabled these amendments in which I believe profoundly. I hope that the Government, if they will not accept them, will think again. If they do not think again about all of these issues, they will be overturning very longstanding institutions in this country; they will be damaging them and upsetting thousands of believers. They will do something that will be very damaging to the country as a whole. I cannot tell noble Lords how many letters of support I have received. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I was asked by my noble friend to second this amendment and I readily agreed. Having heard her excellent speech, I am delighted to follow her. All that these amendments seek to do is to say that the religions of Europe—the Church of England's religion of Christianity and the Roman Catholic religion, of which I am a part, Judaism, the Jews in their synagogues and the Moslems in their mosques, are all working for Europe for the past 2000 years. Are we now to say that they must take second place to a human rights convention which started in 1950? We believe that these religions must be left untouched. They have their own credentials, ethics and morals and they should be excluded from the Bill. In no way should this Bill be allowed to curb them. If the Government do not agree to these amendments the situation will be a most dangerous one.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and speaking so powerfully and ably to it. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for the amendment that he has tabled. Both amendments introduce issues of great importance which your Lordships' House has already debated this afternoon in considering the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel and, more recently, the amendment relating to the Church of Scotland tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I listened with great sympathy to that debate. I did not intervene in it. Having heard the

1325
contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the differences between Scotland and England, I am relieved that I remained silent during that debate. Nevertheless, the issues are very similar.
It is quite clear that the churches and other faith communities are profoundly concerned to support human rights in general. Indeed, we supported this particular Bill. The most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1993 and emphasised the support of the Church of England for the basic principles of this Bill. That was echoed by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Lichfield when he spoke at Second Reading. He is sorry that he is unable to be here this evening; he wanted to be present to speak to these amendments.
Let us be in no doubt that the Churches support the principle of human rights which, as has already been said, were conceived within them and nurtured by them. They are inseparable from our convictions and beliefs, but we do not know what may be included in future. Within human rights, mention has already been made of the great change of scene that has taken place over more than 40 years.
The concerns of the Church of England were expressed by the secretary general of the General Synod in a letter to the permanent secretary of the LCD. I can do no better than quote from that letter. He stated:
"Our anxieties arise particularly at the interface between the right to freedom of religion, coupled with the public rights and functions of the Churches on the one hand, and the other rights enshrined in the Convention on the other. We are anxious not to escape our proper obligations under the Convention but to be assured that the Convention and the new Bill cannot be used to require us to act in ways contrary to our religious principles and beliefs, or the beliefs underlying Church bodies".
That is written with particular reference to the Church of England, but, of course, it applies to other Churches and other faiths.
The Government have begun to take note of the deep concerns of the Churches. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the great care and attention that they have given to our concerns, and to their officials for the careful work that they have done.
I shall add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, when indicating particular areas of concern. It is clear that the clergy of the Church of England will be regarded, when undertaking public responsibilities, as part of a public authority. That will relate, for instance, to marriage. There are all sorts of discussions at the moment about the whole matter of marriage. There is a good deal of debate as to whether marriage necessarily involves those of the opposite gender.
It is at the moment enshrined in legislation that Church of England clergy have the duty to marry those of the right age within their parish who present themselves for marriage. What happens if two people of the same sex present themselves for marriage and require that they should be married by the local vicar? How will he be protected in those circumstances? Could
1326
they not bring an action under the convention to say that they had a right to marry? Article 12 of the convention expresses that matter and states:
"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family".
Is it not possible that under that right a same sex couple might present themselves to a vicar and say, "Under the convention you have to marry us"?
That is an indication of the kind of matters that concern us. There are others relating also to divorce. Church of England clergy are not required to marry those who are divorced, but is that the case for those of other Churches, or might they find themselves being approached by a couple, one of whom is divorced, with a requirement that they should be married?
There is a further group of issues which does not necessarily relate to clergy but to other organs and people within the Church. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave some examples. Perhaps I might add to those. What would be the situation of a Church adoption society that had as part of its policy that it did not give children for adoption to same-sex couples, and did that on the grounds of religious conviction? That belief could also be backed by logical argument. Where would they stand?
The noble Baroness gave the example of the head of an aided school. Could a requirement in a job advertisement, say, for the head of a voluntary-aided school, specifying communicant membership of the Church of England, be ruled as breaching the convention? Those concerns apply not merely to the appointment of such people but to their dismissal. The governors of a voluntary-aided school might feel that certain kinds of behaviour were not in accord with the beliefs and practices of the Church which their trust deed represented. For instance, the head might be involved in an adulterous relationship. The governors might feel that that was not in accord with the ways of the Church which that head was representing to the children. Might those governors be open to accusations of discrimination or unlawful action under the convention? Those are some of the Church's practical concerns.
Another set of concerns relates to the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopate. Your Lordships will be aware that the Church of England allows the ordination of women to the priesthood but not to the episcopate. Might it be possible that the General Synod would be open to the accusation of acting not in accordance with the convention because it did not include bishops among the groups to which women could be ordained? I am pleased to say that, after discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office, that matter is to be resolved by Amendment No. 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It is not merely a particular concern about the ordination of women; it is a more general concern about the right of the General Synod to introduce measures and the degree of control which Parliament would be taking back were it to subject General Synod legislation to the provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that when we reach Amendment No. 46 we will find that our concerns have been met.

1327
There are issues of great importance and considerable concern. We shall listen to the Government's reply with great attention.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer firm support to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other speakers. Two issues are involved. The first relates to whether the Bill, unamended, would be damaging to the interests of the Churches and the other religious bodies. Secondly, if that is so, whether those interests should be subordinated to other priorities. There is no doubt about the first issue. The Churches and the other religious bodies, including our Jewish friends, are certain that the Bill will damage them. No one can tell me that anyone knows better than the Churches about their own interests. It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
That leads to the question: how important is Christianity today? I submit that this is still a Christian country. It struggles along with plenty of other interests, but I like to believe that it is a Christian country. I hope and believe that Mr. Tony Blair would say that his is a Christian Cabinet. I believe that he is the most explicit Christian we have had as Prime Minister since Mr. Gladstone. We have had many good Christian Prime Ministers, including some now in this House—I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—but we cannot improve on Mr. Blair as an explicit Christian. I believe that he. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary and two other Cabinet Members are members of the Christian Socialist movement. Does that mean anything or is it merely a form of words? I cannot believe that such a Cabinet would be proud to go down in history as having defied the united religious conscience of this country.
I have high and sincere esteem for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, particularly since he compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey. In the Catholic Church we genuflect in front of a cardinal—we treat him with that peculiar deference. However, I remind the noble and learned Lord about another cardinal—Cardinal Newman. What did he say? He said, "If I am asked to drink to the health of the Pope and to conscience, I would drink them both, but I would drink to conscience first". If I am asked to drink to the health of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and to conscience, I would drink to both with enthusiasm, but I should drink to conscience first. As I said, I offer strong support for the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. In so doing, I speak to my Amendment No. 24 which is within this group. I reserve the right to divide your Lordships' House, if so advised, on my Amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 24, which I shall move in due course, is of general application to religious bodies of all creeds recognised as such in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland. It seeks to reflect the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield as expressed in Committee on 24th November 1997 at col. 799 of Hansard.
1328
How much I agree with my noble friend Lady Young. Until we reached the Committee stage, none of us knew what it was all about. It was only in Committee that the penny began to drop. This amendment subsumes also the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter (col. 794) as to the effect of the Bill on the decision-making processes of the General Synod of the Church of England, as implemented by Acts of Parliament. As a result of negotiations which have ensued since this amendment was tabled on 3rd December, that aspect has produced Amendment No. 46 which goes some way to meet those concerns, and I am very grateful for that.
However, it does not include church schools and it does not include any person acting under the authority of the General Synod; for example, the local vicar, to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
The object of this amendment is to exclude religious bodies of all creeds from the fast-track, the generally accepted means of incorporation where there is a declaration of incompatibility by our domestic courts and tribunals. This is a very important argument, as my noble friend stressed, and your Lordships' House, as constituted, affords a unique and singularly appropriate forum to consider the merits of that argument.
According to Rolv Ryssdal, a distinguished and long-serving member of the court at Strasbourg—I think it was about 11 years—this convention is not intended to destroy the richness of our cultural heritage and other variety of life found in Europe by imposing rigid uniform solutions, but to recognise the rights of free societies within limits to choose for themselves human rights policies which suit them best.
There are 40 signatory states. This amendment will inhibit the imposition of rigid uniform solutions in this context in the United Kingdom in a situation where I say quite unashamedly that uniformity may never be sought and never imposed. We have heard much about the relevant articles—Articles 8 to 10—relating to the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression. In that context your Lordships may well think that alleged breaches of the convention by the General Synod of the Church of England, Church schools, all religious bodies and persons exercising functions under the authority of such institutions should not be a matter for adjudication in our courts and tribunals: but by the Commission and the Court of Justice—multinational judicial bodies to which there is direct access under our treaty obligations, having first exhausted the rights under our domestic law. Your Lordships may also think that it is neither appropriate, acceptable nor indeed necessary that our domestic courts should make declarations in this context as to incompatibility under Clauses 2 to 5, which trigger ministerial remedial measures by affirmative resolution under Clauses 10 to 12—the "fast track".
There is no doubt that, but for the amendment to Clause 6(2), the fast track would apply for all these religious institutions of all creeds. I say that because they are "public authorities" within the meaning of Clause 6(3), as their functions are of a public nature

1329
and the exercise of such functions as regards teaching, guidance, dogma and discipline are not of the nature of private acts within the meaning of Clause 6(5).
I do not often refer to clauses and subsections, but I do so to make it totally clear that what is at stake is an erosion of a very important situation so far as concerns all religions. There is no denying it; there is no mistaking it; and there is no object in minimising it. For the avoidance of doubt as to what is a religious body, it is provided in the amendment that it is a body,
"recognised as such by the Secretary of State".
In this all-creed context, is it really the business of government to seek to devise and impose upon our country some rigid uniform solution, some ethical moral code based upon ad hoc case-by-case decisions in our courts and tribunals as to incompatibility with the convention? Is that really the proper business of our courts? As to this, there is considerable doubt about how our courts could approach it.
Let us look for a moment at Clause 4 which is in permissive form; it is not mandatory. There is no indication as to how the court will exercise its discretion—whether to refer to the Commission or to grant a declaration. In that context, let us test it on a fairly hard test bed. As regards privacy under Article 8, of which family law is another branch, it is understood to be the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the courts would leave it to the Commission. However the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in answer to me across the House on more than one occasion (I think only two) was that the courts would, by a series of case by case declarations, trigger remedial action and build up a law of privacy.
What will happen to the family situation under Article 8? Is there to be any difference? Who is right? Is it the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn? Who knows? Where are we? I should like to know the answer.
What is family life under Article 8? In this "all-creed" context, are our courts to seek to build up—I return again to Rolv Ryssdal, president—rigid, uniform solutions? It is unthinkable. In that context, is it not the business of the multinational body, the commission, and the Court of Human Rights, which have the composite judicial wisdom appropriate to deal with these matters?
As has been said, we are—and, let us face it, we are proud of it—a predominantly Christian society, tolerant of all manner of creeds: dissenters, agnostics and atheists. Each religion has its own dogma, teaching, rituals, ceremony and discipline according to its own concept of the grace of God. Each religion has its own concept of respect for family life. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, and truly said, on 9th December, families in our society vary infinitely. The Government are not in the business of preaching or prescribing.
I conclude with the winding up of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Committee stage. He failed to recognise the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield which prompted this
1330
amendment, or those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter which have since been met. When clarification was sought, at col. 800, of the Official Report of 24th November, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor declined to respond lest what he said should be cited in the courts as an aid to the interpretation of the Bill—seeking sanctuary by grasping the knocker on the door of Pepper v. Hart. There has been no meeting, no distribution of paper, to canvass support for the amendment which is sought only on the merits of the argument on the Floor of your Lordships' House. With an expression of gratitude to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, who put down their names, I shall beg to move the amendment in due course.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I said earlier, this is an issue of conscience. We have not yet had an opportunity to hear a view contrary to that of many speakers who have spoken so eloquently in support of this group of amendments. I am afraid that I have to advance a somewhat different view. This is an issue of conscience, and I do not claim to speak for everyone on these Benches. But in my belief and that of a number of my noble friends, this group of amendments is misguided, unnecessary and possibly damaging.
I recognise that there is a special problem in relation to the Church of England because of its constitutional position as the established Church. It has power to pass legally binding measures and an established and recognised system of church courts. There is, therefore, as I fully accept, a need to ensure that in introducing a human rights Bill we do not upset the constitutional balance between the Church of England and Parliament. However, at the same time I do not think it right for the Church of England to claim the benefits and privileges of established status while rejecting a provision which, when the Human Rights Bill is enacted, will be part of the general law of the land. To a much more limited extent, the same issue attaches to the Church of Scotland.
Other Christian religious denominations, and indeed non-Christian religions, are plainly not in themselves public authorities. In so far as Amendment No. 72 simply restates that fact, it is unnecessary. Religion cannot be exempted generally from the European Convention on Human Rights. Some religions or sects—not any of the mainstream bodies within the principal religions, but some fringe sects within them—may have practices which involve unacceptable violations of human rights. Female genital mutilation is clearly an example. There are also cults, some of them claiming to be Christian, which encourage mass suicide. Those cannot be tolerated by the state; they must be prohibited by the Government. The fact that behaviour of that kind is instigated by religious belief is not, and should not be, a defence. When the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, tried to get round that problem in his Amendment No. 24 by restricting the exemption to religious bodies recognised as such by the Secretary of State, it seemed to me that he substituted King Stork for King Log. What could be a greater interference with religious freedom than having religious bodies selected for recognition by the Secretary of State?

1331
But the interference of the European Convention on Human Rights does not go beyond banning these unacceptable practices. Let me remind the House of Article 9(2) of the European Convention, which states:
"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
I ask those who have spoken whether they really wish the Churches to have a freedom to do things that are contrary to public safety, contrary to public order, health or morals, or contrary to the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I accept that Amendment No. 72 does not state that all religious practices are exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights. But in so far as it exempts religious bodies from that convention when discharging public functions, it is gravely wrong. Some non-established denominations and non-Christian religions do indeed have public functions. The provision of education, particularly but perhaps not exclusively education which is provided out of public funds, is unquestionably a public function. However, in providing education of this kind, it is clear that religious schools will have a wide freedom to provide religious education. I should point out that one of the landmark decisions of the European Court of Human Rights was a decision which held that parents in Belgium had the right to send their children to religious schools if they wished to do so. The European convention helps, not hinders, religious education.
In performing that function, schools must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, it would be appalling if they were not required to do so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, agreed that the Church of Scotland would accept that point. However, Amendments Nos. 24 and 27 propose to exempt Church schools from the European convention. I believe that that is wholly objectionable. There is no interference under the European convention with the right of religious teaching, but why should religious schools be exempt from the prohibition under the convention of inhuman or degrading treatment? Why should religious schools be exempt from the obligation to respect a child's family life?
Many of the examples that have been put forward are, I believe, examples of fantasy or of something wholly outside the convention. Let us take the example of the refusal to consider the appointment of somebody who is not a communicant member of the Church of England to the headship of a Church school. Rightly or wrongly, that does not involve a breach of the European convention. The non-discrimination clause, Article 14, concerns only discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the convention. The convention does not include employment rights and there is therefore no question of someone who is refused a headship of a Church school because they are not a communicant member of the Church having any right of recourse to the courts. The right not to consecrate women as bishops is also something that involves no infringement of the European convention.
1332
I believe that the Churches should welcome the application of the European convention to all schools, including their own. The Church of Scotland is apparently prepared to do so.
Let us take another brief look at the Church of England courts and take as an example an application to remove the incumbent of a benefice from office on the grounds of personal misconduct. Surely the incumbent is entitled to the protection of Article 6 of the European convention, which would give him the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Why should an ecclesiastical court be exempt from that obligation?
Finally, in Amendment No. 26 a similar point applies in relation to charities. Charities sometimes, though not by any means always, perform public functions—providing services, for example, to the public in co-operation with the Government, and often with the benefit of government funding. If they do so, I believe that they should be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Given the noble Lord's interpretation of what the Bill means to Churches, can I give him two examples and ask for a response? First, how free would a Church school be to recruit to its staff only those who practise that particular religion—a Jewish school to recruit Jewish people, a Catholic school to recruit Catholics and an Anglican school to recruit Anglicans? Secondly, how free would a Church school be to reject or decline to recruit someone to the staff at any level who was living in a same-sex relationship, contrary to the practice and beliefs of that particular religion?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I said, the European Convention contains no employment rights; therefore, the European Convention would have no effect whatever on circumstances of that kind. It would be a matter purely for internal domestic legislation to decide whether or not those people had employment rights.
I would conclude therefore by asking your Lordships not to accept what I believe is a wholly exaggerated and misguided belief in the damaging effects that the European Convention on Human Rights will have on the Churches. I welcome the support of the Churches in general for the European Convention on Human Rights, but I believe that they are misguided in seeking exemption for any of their functions, including the function of providing education.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord appreciates that I am not saying that the human rights convention will damage the Church. I have never said that. I have said that the Church and all religious bodies are subject to the convention but that the adjudication should be by the international body and

1333
not ad hoc in our courts, piecemeal. That is all. I have never said that the Churches should be free of the human rights convention.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that is where this Bill came in. It was meant to replace the need for anybody to go through the lengthy and expensive process of going to Strasbourg by giving remedies in English, Scottish or Northern Ireland courts. I do not see why that should not apply to the Church just as much as it applies to every other institution in this country.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain to the House—I refer to an earlier stage of his speech—why he believes that the Roman Catholic Church, to which I adhere, is not a public authority? Surely, any Roman Catholic priest qualifies as a person certain of whose functions, such as marriage, are functions of a public nature.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, some of the functions of the Church may be of a public nature, particularly the provision of Roman Catholic schools. However, I would not take the view that marriages by Roman Catholic priests were the performance of a public function.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I would first like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and all the others who have spoken on this amendment. It is a tremendously important issue.
I speak as a Catholic and it is a matter of interest to me. I, through my mother, am a direct descendant of Sir Thomas More or, as I prefer it, Saint Thomas More. I seem to remember that the issue of Church versus state was critical to his life.
Having listened to the debate this evening, it is quite clear to me that this is an issue of Church versus state. However, we may find other reasons for debating what the Church of Scotland should do, or whatever the topic may be. The fundamental issue tonight is that of the Church versus state. Which is superior? Of course, when I speak about Churches, I refer to all religions, whether it is the Church of England, Catholic, Moslem or Jewish. I believe that this the fundamental fact about which we are talking.
I am very clear that, as the Bill is drafted, it comes down in favour of the state, which I believe is wrong. The state should be superior to the Churches. I believe that the Lord Chancellor himself would confirm that view. I wonder whether it is for this Government or for the state, through the courts, to come to the decision of what is right for Caesar or what is right for God. I am afraid that for us to try to come to a judgment on that is wrong.
The amendment is skilfully worded. It is easy to ask what is a religion and what therefore should apply in this situation. But many strange groups would say, "We are a religion and though our religion says that we should be against certain matters contained in the Human Rights Bill, that is not good enough".
1334
Amendment No. 24 says that the Churches or religions should be recognised as such by the Secretary of State. It provides an ingenious solution to the problem and, however honest they may be, people with curious ideas cannot get round the legislation by claiming to be religious. It is important that we recognise the significance of that. In a way it solves the problem of what is the state's responsibility and what is the Churches' responsibility. It is a combination of the two; namely, that religion can be judged by the state but when they take their stand they are separate and on their own.
As I see it, this is an issue of Church versus state. I hope that your Lordships agree with me that it is like the judgment of Sir Thomas More; namely, that we have to decide in our own consciences and our own beliefs on what we should take a stand. I hope therefore that the amendments will be accepted and that your Lordships will go ahead on that basis. That is the real issue in this debate. What I have been advocating covers not only the Church of England and the Catholic Church as well as other religions, but also the Church of Scotland. It is clear that it too fits into this category.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I can be brief. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 72, at page 13 of the Marshalled List, and particularly to paragraph 3 of the schedule which proposes to excluastical courts of the Church of England.
There is a court known ade from Section 6 those exercising functions in connection with the ecclesis the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. I know of its existence because I was a member of that court. It consists of three diocesan bishops and two appellate judges. It does not meet very often, but when it meets it considers and decides questions of ritual and doctrine, and doctrine is what matters for present purposes.
I have three simple questions to ask in relation to that court. Is it intended that that court, the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, should be a court for the purposes of Clause 6(3)(a) of the Bill. The second question is: if so, are its decisions to be subject, for the first time in history, to challenge by way of judicial review in the ordinary civil courts of our country? Decisions of the ecclesiastical courts have never been subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts in the past for the simple reason that the civil courts and the ecclesiastical courts are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
There is only one method of appeal from the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved and that is by way of a commission of inquiry appointed by the Queen. That consists not of three bishops and two judges but of two right reverend Prelates and three Law Lords. There is no other way of challenging the decisions of that court.
If it is proposed that for the first time the decisions of the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved should be subject to the civil courts in some matters but perhaps not others, and if it is proposed, for instance, in the case of matters of doctrine, that it should not be subject to challenge, who, I ask, is to decide what are the matters of doctrine and what are not? That is the very question

1335
asked in the earlier debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I listened with great interest to the Lord Advocate's reply and I did not consider it satisfactory.
It seems to me that by far the simplest way of resolving any possible dispute between the ecclesiastical courts and the civil courts. in matters of doctrine at any rate, is to exclude the ecclesiastical courts altogether from the ambit of the Bill. In doing so, one would not weaken the beneficial purposes of the Bill—which I support with all my heart—one jot or one tittle.
10 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very glad to speak immediately after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, because what I have to say dovetails with what he said. I shall not add to the many points made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart with which I entirely agree.
I make one preliminary point. If one assumes hypothetically—and it is entirely hypothetically—that a religious school of whatever religion was, through its managers, to exclude pupils who were black, no one, I think, would seek to advance the proposition that that school and its managers should not be bound by the education provision in Article 2 of the first protocol to the convention read with the non-discrimination guarantee. I give that example because it simply illustrates that there are situations in which religious bodies might hypothetically violate a fundamental human right.
The second point I make is that this is not a question of church versus state; it is a question of church as state because the only circumstances in which a religious body could be liable under Clause 6 would be if it exercised public functions. The real tension is not between church and state: it is between public authorities and the basic rights of individuals. The real question is whether individuals are to have effective remedies in this country, and not only in the courts in Strasbourg, when their basic human rights and freedoms are violated. Thirdly, I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. Most of the examples given today are not remotely within the scope of the European convention.
The main point I want to mention—I think it will be helpful to your Lordships—is that our courts have had increasingly to wrestle in recent years with the question of whether religious bodies fall within or outside the scope of judicial review. The case law is all one way. There is no question in my view that that case law would be altered by one jot by the enactment of Clause 6 as it stands.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples. There was a recent case in which the question was whether the decision of the Chief Rabbi, in determining whether a person is morally and religiously fit to occupy the position of rabbi, was judicially reviewable. In the case of ex parte Wachmann, Mr. Justice Simon Brown decided in 1972 that a decision of the Chief Rabbi, exercising this role, was essentially of a religious nature, that it was not the exercise of a public function and that
1336
for this reason it was not judicially reviewable. That case law would apply directly to the way in which one interprets the notion of public authority and public function in Clause 6.
The same reasoning was that of Lord Justice Hoffmann in the Jockey Club case in the Court of Appeal where he approved a decision in the Wachmann case. He said:
"Religion is something to be encouraged but it is not the business of government".
A like decision was reached by the English Court of Appeal in a case called Ali v. the Imam of Bury Park on 12th May 1993 in respect of a decision of the Imam of a mosque. His decision, on the same reasoning, was held not to be judicially reviewable because the sole source of his power was the consensual submission of the mosque community to the provisions of the mosque constitution and he had no public law function.
The most recent example was a decision only in November 1997 of Mr. Justice Lightman in a case involving the Court of the Chief Rabbi, the London Beth Din, licensing the ritual slaughter of animals in accordance with Jewish law. Again, Mr. Justice Lightman explained, relying on all of these cases, that these were all matters for religious courts to determine—they were not matters that the civil courts would determine—because in all these functions the bodies were not public authorities exercising public functions.
I do not see anything in Clause 6 or in any other provision of the Bill to suggest that that case law or the position explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, with regard to ecclesiastical courts would be altered by the Bill provided that what those courts were determining were religious questions. Of course, they might be determining other matters of a public nature. I cannot think of any at the moment but I suppose marriage might be such an example. There might be circumstances in which, to take a ludicrous example, black people were excluded from the marriage ceremony and the right to marry whereby Article 12 of the convention, read with the non-discrimination guarantee, would be violated. It is possible to think of cases where the procedural fairness requirements might be triggered.
I emphasise these cases because people become excited. They think of great church and state clashes when in truth our courts have sensibly drawn the line. There are no exceptions to the cases I have referred to. The position is quite clear. I eagerly await the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to see whether what I have been saying, speaking from this Bench, represents the Government's view of the position. Speaking for myself, I do not believe it right to elevate this matter into one of those great 17th or 19th century Church and state conflicts. It is simply not about that, but about the rights of the individual to be fairly treated in accordance with the convention, with remedies in our courts and not only in the Strasbourg courts.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in his argument the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has just cited

1337
the statement that religion is not the business of government. He stated that as being the statement of one of the Lords who sat in judgment in looking at these questions.
It is precisely because I subscribe to that view that I support the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has so eloquently and articulately moved this evening. I believe that these clauses as they stand have opened up the argument again about the relationship between Church and state, which had previously been settled. Therefore, I believe that this is an unnecessary argument which has been precipitated because insufficient forethought has been given to the convention as it now stands and as we are about to incorporate it. The Government do not need to be reminded that in politics perception is all. In many ways that is the golden rule of politics.
I was very struck by an editorial comment in this week's The Universe, the Catholic weekly newspaper. The headline states,
"A threat to our freedom".
It speaks about today's legislation. The editorial says,
"The implications of this [Bill] could be devastating, hitting at the very fabric of religious freedoms that have been won with blood and anguish over the centuries".
The editorial concludes,
"In simple terms we live on the very brink of an inconceivable terror—the total state control of our religious institutions".
That is the perception of many people outside your Lordships' House. It is those fears that the Government need to allay today if the golden rule of politics that perception is all is to be dealt with properly.
In the mid-1980s, when I was in another place, I helped to found the Jubilee Campaign, a human rights organisation which campaigns for religious liberties worldwide. Working alongside organisations such as Canon Michael Bordeaux's Keston College, we highlighted individual cases of discrimination and the institutional persecution of believers by oppressive and authoritarian governments.
I was particularly struck that the former Soviet Union had one of the longest and technically admirable charters of human rights ever promulgated. As we all know, reality was very different from that. Along with many others and with the former Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Jacobovits, I visited Moscow during that period and met Jewish believers who had been persecuted because of regulations inserted into their state laws that allowed the circumscription of religion.
In the Ukraine I met a bishop who had spent 17 years in prison for his faith. I met the chairman of the Committee for the Defence of the Ukranian Catholic Church, Pavlo Vasylk. He spent 18 years in prison. There was a young priest who had spent six months at Chernobyl clearing radioactive waste as a punishment for being caught celebrating the liturgies in the open. We forget too easily that in this century millions upon millions of Jewish and Christian people have died for their faith which is more than in any of the preceding centuries. Yet for over 70 years Jews and Christians
1338
were systematically persecuted and religious autonomy was outlawed while we in the West did very little about it.
Autonomy is at the heart of the issues which this House has been debating today. By defining "public authority" as a body which performs "public functions", the Bill before your Lordships' House today strikes at the very heart of religious liberty and practice in Britain. There are any number of theological, disciplinary, liturgical and other religious practices which the House may disagree with, but which are matters for the adherents of those religions. Divorce is one very good example. For instance, the Catholic Church does not admit remarriage after divorce. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has reminded us of Thomas More, a former holder of the office of Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Commons and, happily, not a Cardinal. He said that he was,
"the King's good servant, but God's first".
He went to the block rather than resile on his belief that the King had no right to dispose of his wife and to remarry. Imagine similar circumstances today.
Under the terms of this Bill the aggrieved protagonists would simply claim their civil rights of remarriage in a church and the heirs of Bishop John Fisher and Thomas More would once again be arraigned in court when they refused to comply. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said this evening, when a churchman of the Catholic Church performs a marriage in a church it is a public matter; it is not a private question. The spectacle of dissenting clergymen and other believers being fined or imprisoned clearly cannot be what the Government have in mind.
The House should take careful note of the American experience where judicial interference, spurred by the litigious excesses of politically correct groups, has led to extraordinary intolerance. For example, in Missouri a fourth-grade student has been disciplined and subjected to ridicule by his school for attempting to say a private and voluntary prayer before eating his lunch in the school cafeteria. In New York the authorities have attempted to stop two groups of orthodox Jews from gathering for religious purposes. In Hawaii two Buddhist nuns have had to file law suits to be allowed to continue long-standing religious worship in their own homes.
Article 9 may guarantee the right to defend religious liberty, but religious freedom will no longer be a right; it will be an argument that needs to be proven in each and every case. This will be a lawyer's paradise, and a believer's nightmare. Clause 6, as it currently stands, opens the way to endless litigation and debilitating campaigns against the Church by single issue groups and secular institutions. This is not alarmism. Already in the European Union in Bavaria attempts have been made to force Roman Catholic schools to remove the crucifix from their walls.
When one decides to be confirmed in a church it is a personal decision. Words like "private" and "public" are secondary and subservient to the personal nature of that decision. Adherents to a particular faith may not under British law force their views on the majority. Some of

1339
the spurious arguments deployed earlier illustrate the force of what I say. Anyone can today be prosecuted under the criminal law if he or she does something that is criminal. No one seeks to place the Church above the law. Similarly, no one, be he churchman or not, may force his views on the majority, although he may like William Wilberforce seek to persuade the majority of the worth of his views. That arrangement has served us in this country extremely well. I believe that it is extremely ill-advised to impose these new conditions.
This Human Rights Bill comes at the end of a decade in which we have seen a flurry of charters setting out citizens' rights. I believe that more than 40 have been legislated for in the past two Parliaments. I believe that it would be of greater use if we were more interested in the duties, responsibilities and obligations of the citizen. To attack the very religious leaders who have sought to redress the imbalance between rights and responsibilities demonstrates how little has yet been understood of what makes for a healthy civil society. I commend the amendments of the noble Baroness to the House this evening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Ripon was quite right to remind the House of the distinguished record of the Church in matters of human rights. He was too modest to say that he himself in the course of the passage of the Asylum Bill had made a notable contribution to that end. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, might have said the same for his Church which made an equally distinguished contribution on that occasion. Listening to him, I recalled the extent to which the determination of religious conscience has been one of the determining forces of liberty. At the same time, when the noble Lord mentioned Thomas More—Sir or Saint, whichever—he reminded us that in times past religious liberty was in greater danger than it is today. In his example of the Catholic marriage I believe that he mistook what was intended by the words "public authority". I grant that a Catholic marriage is in no sense a private matter. It is in the face of the congregation, but the words "public authority" mean "as an emanation of the state"; in the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, "the Church as state". In a Catholic marriage that function is fulfilled by the registrar, not the priest. The action of the registrar would come under the European convention, but my noble friend is surely right, that the action of the Catholic priest does not.
The Bill and the convention can affect the Church only when it is acting as an organ of the state—as an exercise of state authority. I am reminded if we look around the Continent of Europe—I remember for example, visits to places as diverse as Uppsala, Cologne, Chartres, and Toledo—that the place of religion in the life of many other countries in Europe is very central indeed. I am not aware of any cases in which the European convention has in fact caused any great damage to the rich importance of religion in the life of those countries, or to the beauty of many places that I am proud to have had the chance to visit.
1340
According to Article 9 of the convention, there is a clause defending freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and freedom for people to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. As my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said on Second Reading, one clause of the convention must he construed in context with another. Therefore any case arising under the convention would have to be construed in the light of Article 9 of the convention, so that very much diminishes the risk that some noble Lords have seen.
I listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, threatening us with the danger—if I may so put it—of rights as yet unborn, like the kings alarming Macbeth at the end of the banquet. I was reminded—not for the first time—listening to speeches from her Benches of what was said to my great grandfather when he introduced the great Reform Bill in 1832. The Conservatives told my great grandfather that the Bill would lead to democracy. My great grandfather said that they were completely wrong. The Conservatives were right on that point. Where they were wrong was in believing that it would lead to disaster if they were right.
People do change their ideas. If my great grandfather had been told that the process that he was setting in motion would lead to the sight of women in Parliament, he would have been horrified, but his son and daughter-in-law would have been completely delighted. Our ideas of what is horrifying change with our concept of rights. Since the one thing changes necessarily in step with the other, the terrors are perhaps not quite as great as we make out.
Since we are dealing with public authorities. Amendment No. 26 is substantially redundant. It is not my understanding that receipt of public money turns one into a public authority. It is also a crucial point that the Bill is going to affect only those Churches which act as organs of the state. It does not affect what used, in 17th century parlance, to be known as a "gathered Church". Now that we have so little establishment of religion, most Churches are, in practice, gathered Churches, however much they would like to be something else.
I cannot see how the Roman Catholic Church, for example, can be regarded as a public authority in this country. I am also extremely concerned, as are others, by the prospect of the Secretary of State deciding what are authorised religions. I shudder to think what that might have done to the history, for example, of the Society of Friends.
I am also well aware of the dangers of setting out to define a religion. I remember that during debates on the poll tax in 1988 it was suddenly realised that it was impossible to impose it on members of religious orders who, of course, had no property. During dinner with one of the right reverend Prelates, I discussed the problem of defining a religion. We had a most enjoyable conversation, but we reached no conclusions.
The problems are considerable. I remember when I arrived in California in 1977 obtaining a local paper and reading about the activities of an organisation which claimed freedom under Article 1 of the US Constitution because it was a religion. Its main business appeared to

1341
be the distribution of drugs. Its way of dealing with those who offended its discipline was to put rattlesnakes through their letterboxes after cutting off the rattle! If we set out to defend everything which calls itself a religion we shall lead ourselves into considerable difficulties.
If a body wants to be a public authority it accepts the convention; it is a necessary consequence. I do not believe that the danger is great. If it does not want to come before the scrutiny of the convention, the alternative is not to be a public authority. It is as simple as that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor one simple question. The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has many state schools. The local authorities run them and they work in partnership. The Church always insists that the head teachers of those schools should be Roman Catholics on the ground that the ethos of the school makes it a good school. Whether the children who attend are Roman Catholics, they wish to have a Roman Catholic head.
If the local authority accedes to that request—and as far as I know they all do—might the local authority, the Roman Catholic Church, or both, find themselves in the courts in Scotland? Likewise, it is likely that the two Moslem schools which Mr. Blunkett has recently set up in England will want Moslem head teachers. If they insist on that, and if the local authority accedes, might they find themselves in court in England?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps as the debate is closing I might say a word or two from these Benches. I do not believe that these amendments or others on a similar basis are party political. However, I, too, accept that they are political, and political in the extreme.
This is the third time we have debated these issues. They first appeared at the beginning of the day with the amendment to Amendment No. 1 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. We heard something similar when we debated Scotland, although we ranged wider than Scotland, when my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved his amendments. We then heard the Government's position and—dare I say it?—its weakness on that case. That weakness was again heard in arguments in relation to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. My noble friend Lady Blatch made the point that the Government's arguments in relation to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were the arguments that could be used to defend the Churches' position. I do not accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, before we broke for dinner some three hours ago.
At this hour I do not wish to run through the points that have been made most clearly and cogently by my noble friend Lady Young and others. However, I wish to pick up one or two issues, particularly those in relation to time.
The first point is the point made by my noble friend in relation to the White Paper. The publication of that White Paper came after the publication of the Bill and
1342
did not herald any of the issues which have now emerged and which have emerged since Committee stage. I too want to ask the question which my noble friend asked. Were the Churches consulted before the Committee stage? Were they asked for their concerns or did the Government just leave those issues to emerge?
The second point is that, as all noble Lords will appreciate, it is now rather late and we have many more amendments with which to deal. I do not know what my noble friend intends to do with this amendment. That is obviously a matter for her. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway must also decide what he wishes to do in relation to his amendment. I have amendments tabled in my name, as do my noble friends on the Front Bench, which require a considerable amount of time for debate and we should wish to pursue those matters at a reasonable hour in due course. We certainly hope that after this amendment, the Government will consider providing an extra day for our deliberations on the Bill. If that is the case, even if my noble friend does not press Amendment No. 23, she may wish to deal at that time with amendments to the schedule or she may wish to return to the matter on Third Reading.
My third and last point is to deal with a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He spoke for the Liberal Benches but at times one felt he was almost answering for the Government. In response to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the extraordinary suggestion that the convention provides no employment rights whatever. I found that very peculiar in the extreme.
Let us take the example given by my noble friend Lady Blatch of a religious school which feels strongly about homosexuality and does not wish to employ practising homosexuals to teach young people. Let us suppose that it employs Mr. X who is not, at the time of the commencement of that employment, a homosexual. However, he becomes a homosexual and the school then decides to dismiss Mr. X from employment of that school. As far as I understand it, Mr. X would be the first to run to the courts to try to say that his human rights had been breached. My guess is that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would be acting for him in the courts, and not long after, we should be hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about what had transpired in the courts.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have taken on some fairly crazy cases in my time but even I would not dream of advising such a person that he had the slightest chance of success, for the good reason that the convention does not give any right to employment without discrimination. That is one of the defects of the convention but it happens to be the case. If the noble Lord looks at the schedule, he will see that there is a guarantee of non-discrimination only in the enjoyment of other convention rights and there are no other convention rights which deal with employment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have heard already from the noble Lord and from the noble and learned Lord the

1343
Lord Chancellor that judges in this country would not be bound by previous cases. They would look at the convention, the Bill and Article 14 which prohibit discrimination. I do not believe it would be a mad case. I am sure that the noble Lord would take that case and would argue that there had been discrimination in that case. That is the fear which the Churches and others have. They do not wish to see their rights diminished in that way. For that reason, these amendments have been tabled and I hope that my noble friend will, either on this or another occasion, press the matter to a Division of the House.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not say that he was speaking for the Liberal Democrat Benches? He was careful to say that he was speaking only for himself.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise. In all sincerity, I distinctly remember that the noble Lord said exactly that. Similarly, I was not speaking for these Benches but speaking for myself. However, I am sure that most of my noble friends behind me will support much of what I said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before my noble kinsman sits down, will he also remember that we on these Benches were in favour of the incorporation of the European Convention something like 40 years before the party opposite were?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that may or may not be the case, but I do not believe that it is something upon which I have to respond for the Opposition.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we recognise that these amendments raise important issues regarding the effect of the Bill on Churches, charities and religious schools. Mindful of the position of the hands of the Clock, I shall try to respond to the main concerns that have been expressed, but obviously not to every single one of them.
If she will forgive me, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, began with something of a litany of complaints. For what it is worth, the Bill and the White Paper were actually published on the same day. There is a very powerful case that these issues are so well known that there was no need for a White Paper. However, I find it very difficult to see how it can be a matter of complaint that a Bill is accompanied by an explanatory White Paper.
It is true that we did not consult the Churches about being regarded as a public authority or, indeed, any of the many other organisations which will be affected by the Bill. I have to confess that it did not occur to anyone in government that the Churches would have any particular difficulty in playing their proper part in the enforcement of human rights in Britain. I therefore make no secret at all of the fact that, when this subject was raised in Committee, I was surprised by the suggestion that Churches and religious bodies should wish to be exempted from a Bill designed to enable people to assert
1344
before the courts of this country the basic rights and freedoms which they have enjoyed under the convention since 1953. I would have expected them to be as enthusiastic as any other body for the incorporation of the European Convention.
However, the concerns of the Churches have now been further explained, both in your Lordships' House and by representatives of the Churches, to representatives of the Home Office at a meeting before Christmas; a meeting which I believe gave satisfaction to the Churches. We now understand better the particular anxieties which the Churches, and bodies linked with them, have about the possible impact of the Bill. Therefore, taking the most important examples, I shall try to explain why I think that the concerns are overstated and why it would be wrong to exempt the Churches from the Bill to the extent that it will apply to them at all. I appeal to the Churches to rally to the Bill as eagerly on their own behalf as they have consistently done to incorporation of the European Convention in general.
We have made every effort to understand the Churches' concerns properly. Ultimately, it appears to us that they reduce to a number of discrete points. Perhaps I may deal, first, with the question of schools and charities. There is a very proper concern on the part of the Churches that they should continue to be able to select for key posts in schools people whose beliefs and manner of life are appropriate to the basic ethos of the school and, if necessary, to dispense with the services of employees who subsequently fall short of providing, shall we say, appropriate role models. No doubt the same applies to a number of charities.
I doubt whether there is any Member of your Lordships' House who would want to stand in the way of the Churches, and others, in that regard. It is certainly not what the Government intend or envisage in the Bill, but the question of law is whether the Bill would have that effect. The answer is emphatically, "no". The convention rights which are listed in Schedule 1 do not include a right to be appointed to any particular post. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is absolutely correct to say that the convention rights have nothing whatever to do with employment rights. It is of the first importance to appreciate that Article 14 only prohibits discrimination in the convention of employment rights. There are no employment rights enshrined in the convention.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. There is a point which has not been clear throughout the debate. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether the convention is susceptible to amendment; and whether an amendment may incorporate employment rights? If so, would they then be incorporated into English law?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the convention of course could be altered by an amendment. But that would require agreement on the part of the United Kingdom before the United Kingdom could be bound by any amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked about Roman Catholic state schools in

1345
Scotland. or Moslem schools. The answer is that neither the convention nor its incorporation stands in the way of those schools appointing people who are appropriate in their judgment in a religious sense to be heads of those institutions.
The critical point—noble Lords should not suggest it is otherwise—is that the rights listed in Schedule 1 did not include a right to be appointed to any particular post. Nor would Article 14 which relates to discrimination apply because Article 14 applies only to discrimination in the application of a convention right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Will he clarify this point for me? Is the noble and learned Lord saying that in the event of an amendment being proposed any one country has an absolute right of veto? I would respect it if the noble and learned Lord did not always look to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for an answer to every question that has been posed.
10.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I apologise if I caught the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, while I was listening to the point the noble Baroness made, which was repetitious of a point made earlier, and which I have already answered. It requires the consent of the United Kingdom. The answer is that we would have to ratify any such amendment. It would not bind if we did not ratify. I have said it before; I say it again for the benefit of the noble Baroness.
I hope that in the light of that the House will agree that it would not be right to exempt religious schools and charities from being regarded as public authorities in the various ways that they are.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 72 go further still. Amendment No. 72 would absolutely remove any priest or minister, or any person exercising any functions on behalf of a church, from being regarded as a public authority. Amendment No. 24 would wholly exempt the General Synod and religious bodies recognised as such by the Secretary of State.
I understand the concerns that have prompted the noble Baroness and noble Lords to make these suggestions. Some points made at the meeting, to which I referred, between Church and government representatives, are relevant here. As the Bill stands, a Church which has some public and some private functions will be regarded as a public authority if the courts so decide, although not in respect of its acts which are of a private nature.
I wish to be as particular as possible. Perhaps the most obvious function which churches carry out which is of a public character is the solemnisation of marriages. There is, as we now know, some concern on the part of the Churches that they might find themselves obliged to marry people whom it would be against their doctrines to marry. I do not avoid the difficult questions; I face up to them. In the extreme case, it is feared that the jurisprudence might develop to the point where it was regarded as a breach of the convention rights to
1346
decline to marry people of the same sex. Short of that, there is a fear that the Churches might be called upon, contrary to conscience, to remarry divorced persons.
Let me make the position plain. It is certainly not the intention of the Government in bringing forward this Bill or in resisting these amendments that the legislation should be used to compel any Church or person acting on behalf of a Church to administer a marriage contrary to their religious doctrines or convictions. Again, I do not believe that the Bill will have that effect. Let us take the "marriage" of homosexual couples first. Article 12 of the convention provides that,
"Men and women of marriagable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right".
It is plain that the meaning of Article 12 is a right enjoyed by men and women—that is, a marriage of a man to a woman—and does not extend to a "marriage" between two men or a "marriage" between two women. Such jurisprudence as there is from Strasbourg supports that view.
I now turn to marriages where one or both of the parties are divorced. The argument would be that the right of a divorced man or woman under Article 12 to marry was infringed by not being able to marry in the church of his or her choice. However, there is a short answer to what is simply a scare. Article 12 does not go beyond a right to marry. It does not amount to a right to marry in a place or according to a ceremony of one's choice, religious or otherwise.
Finally, the new schedule proposed by the noble Baroness would exempt from being regarded as a public authority any person exercising functions in connection with the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England. I again question why it should be necessary or appropriate to do this. The courts of the Church of England are courts of the land.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked me certain detailed questions about a very particular Church of England court, the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, and the Privy Council. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will write to him in detail upon the point. But that court is plainly in my view a court and under Clause 6(1) it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with any of the convention rights. The courts are covered by the convention, and Church of England courts are covered by the convention.
It is in the highest degree unlikely, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that any court of the Church of England could ever conceivably run foul of the convention. I could elaborate upon the matter but that might be thought to be expressing a greater respect for the views of the noble Lord than would be acceptable to part of the Opposition Benches this evening.
Before I conclude, I should mention that there is a further concern, particular to the Church of England, with which I have not dealt. It relates to the power which in its present form the Bill would give to amend a Measure of the General Synod by means of a remedial order. On that matter, too, we have listened carefully to the Church's concern, and we do think that an

1347
amendment to the Bill is appropriate. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will deal more fully with the matter when we reach Clause 10. The Government believe that the amendment he will move will give satisfaction to the Church.
I have dealt at greater length than is perhaps appropriate at this hour with the concern expressed by the Churches, both directly to the Government and through Members of this House. We are not brushing aside these concerns. After the fullest consideration I am, however, convinced, and the Government are convinced, that the concerns sincerely and fully expressed are not well-founded. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking all noble Lords who have supported me in the debate this evening, in particular my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Earl, Long Longford, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, from the Cross-Benches, and all those who have stayed until this late hour. I believe it indicates the importance that we all attach to these amendments. They are very serious and go to the heart of the Bill. I am therefore very grateful for the support that I have received all the way through.
Perhaps I might turn to those noble Lords who have not supported me, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester. It is always dangerous for a lay person to have an argument with lawyers, but I am bound to say to both of them that, if they were putting a case, they were using the oldest trick in the book: you find a perfectly ridiculous case and then knock it down. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, quoted the case of a Church of England school refusing to admit black children. He might have thought of something better than that! Having built it up, he knocks it down to make us look silly. I do not think that that is very clever; I think we might be taken somewhat more seriously.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that that accusation against my noble friend and myself is a case of the pot calling the kettle black? The examples given by the noble Baroness about circumstances in which the courts might interfere with the working of the Churches were at least as far-fetched.
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, I do not accept that at all. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quoted a lot of cases to indicate the difficulty of defining a religious organisation. He talked about what all noble Lords would agree might be regarded as crank organisations which supported mass murder, female mutilation, and so on. Those are acts which would come up against the criminal law. Nobody is suggesting for one moment that they would be supported by the Churches or anybody else.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness would be unwise to forget that the Emperor Nero regarded all Christians as cranks.
Baroness Young: I do not think that Members of this House will consider the opinions of the Emperor Nero
1348
tonight—except, of course, members of the Liberal Democrat Party. I think we should concentrate on more relevant issues and need not worry about the Emperor Nero, although I recognise that in addressing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I am effectively addressing Cardinal Wolsey. Perhaps we should call him Your Eminence instead!
The House should not be taken in by unreal examples which are intended to make the Churches and the arguments that I have put forward look ridiculous. Far from doing that, I believe it has been shown that those are ridiculous examples indeed.
If I may go on to take up the question of employment law, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in effect: "Don't worry about all this. It's perfectly all right. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds and you are making a fuss about nothing".
I understand that in Holland an employment law case is pending involving an institute for Bible study at which somebody wishes to be employed to teach who is very knowledgeable about the Bible and is perfectly capable of teaching everything in it from the beginning to the end but who does not happen to believe in anything in it. The organisation does not wish to employ that person and a case is now pending. The idea that all this is illusory is simply not true. Once this provision is on the statute book, unless there are these protections, cases will be brought, there will be litigation and the whole area will be expanded further.
I turn to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his winding-up speech. He first accused me of having a litany of complaints. I hope that he has understood my complaints; I have not forgotten them. If we had done something like that when we were in government we would never have heard the end of it. He is very lucky that he is replying to somebody as meek and mild as myself.
The fact is that he has already admitted that he did not consult the Churches; he actually told the House that he did not think it was necessary. After all, they are a hit like the privatised water companies; but perhaps those companies are more important in his scheme of things. In any event, he thought that it was not worth consulting the Churches. Now, of course, he has come to the House and it has suddenly dawned on him that perhaps there was a point, that the Churches—the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Jewish Church, the Moslems and the Buddhists—actually had something to contribute and to be considered. I suppose that we should be flattered that he has changed his mind. He obviously believes, at last, that we have a point. We are now being considered in all of this, so I thank him for that. I am so pleased that he has grasped this point.
The fact is that he is asking us to take it for granted that everything will be all right. But what he is in effect saying to the Churches is., "You are going to have to defend yourself if anybody does come along"; but there can be no guarantee. The Lord Chancellor cannot give a guarantee; the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is briefing everybody, cannot give a guarantee; the noble Lord,

1349
Lord Goodhart cannot give a guarantee that nobody is going to come to court and that nobody is going to raise these issues.
Who will be caught? The Churches are going to be put in the dock; they are going to be guilty until they prove themselves to be innocent. They are going to have to pay for the litigation. That is fine for the lawyers. They are going to do all right, Jack, thank you very much, whichever way it goes. It will be the Church and the poor congregations who support these people who will have to raise the money. Of course the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor looks pleased. The whole of the legal profession is going to do very well indeed out of this Bill. Perhaps I am rather envious. I have always thought I should have read law and I realise that it was a terrible mistake that I did not. The lawyers will do very well but the Churches will be put in the dock because, in effect, we do not know what is going to happen in the future. No one can give a guarantee that things will remain as they are.
We have had some wonderful discussions this evening. The Liberal Democrats quite properly raised the 1832 Reform Bill. No doubt we could go back through the 19th century to a great many issues. But those of us who have actually lived since 1950 do not have to go back to 1832 to see the different issues that have been raised which would have been unthinkable in 1950. The mere thought that one would even suggest a marriage between same sex couples would have been completely unthought of in 1950, and yet all these things are commonly discussed nowadays. We are legislating not for 1998 but into the 21st century. We have to make an effort of the imagination to see what it is going to be like in the years to come for our grandchildren, not just for ourselves. We have not had any real answers.
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really thinks that there is nothing to worry about, why does he not accept the amendment? It would make no difference and it would give the assurance that we want. But he will not do that because he cannot be quite sure that there is nothing to worry about and he believes, therefore, that things must stay as they are.
We have had a long debate tonight and I am prepared to keep the House as long as I have to.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Young: My Lords, there were plenty of people earlier this afternoon who spent a lot of time on their speeches, and one thing is for sure. I was not born yesterday and I can see what has been happening in the House. I make no apology therefore for speaking at length and keeping the House until 11 o'clock at night. I should very much like to divide the House because I believe that there are a great many people here who came particularly for that purpose.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Young: My Lords, your Lordships wish me to divide the House, and I shall do so. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Kingsland, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinloss. Ly.

Belstead, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Berners, B.

Liverpool, E.

Biddulph, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Blatch, B.

Longford, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brentford, V.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chesham, L.

Monson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Norfolk, D.

Courtown. E.

Northesk, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranbome, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Perth, E

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham. L.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Donegal], M.

Rochester, L.

Elles, B.

Rowallan, L.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Seccombe, B.

Fitt, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fookes, B.

simon of Glaisdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Stallard, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stewartby, L.

Hankey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strange, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Waterford, M.

Hylton. L.

Wilberforce, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Wilcox. B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Dorrnand of Essington, L.

Acton. L.

Evans of Parkside. L.

Amos, B.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Bassarn of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Borrie, L.

Gilbert, L

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Goodhart, L.

Burlison, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Carlisle. E.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Chandos, V.

Grenfell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Colville of Cuhoss, V.

Hardie. L.

David, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

L.Haskel,

Desai, L.

Hayman, B.

Dixon, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

1351

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Puttnam. L.

Hoyle, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hughes, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rea, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Irvine of Lairg. L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Islwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sewel, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Highburv, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Nicol, B.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the Government, particularly in the presence of the Chief Whip, just exactly what their intentions are on timing this evening. It is already 11.10 p.m. and many of us feel that we have been at the Bill for some considerable hours. We are less than half way through the Marshalled List of amendments. We have a number of amendments of considerable importance coming up later on. For example, there is the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, Amendment No. 25, to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, wishes to speak. Later on, my noble friend Lord Kingsland has amendments, as does my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. More importantly, there are amendments on the fast-track procedure which all noble Lords would like to discuss in good time, at the proper time. At 11.10 p.m., having had a debate that lasted some two and a quarter hours on a matter of great importance, it would be useful if the Chief Whip could give some indication as to when we can have some extra time so that we can debate the rest of the Bill in good time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has revived the question that I asked earlier. As he said, this is a most important Bill and one of which I am myself an enthusiastic supporter. It is quite intolerable that matters of importance on it should be discussed at this hour of the night. I also point out that we had the Rippon report on the Sittings of the House in which it was agreed that we should adjourn at reasonable hours. In a very short time
1352
there is a day scheduled for the Third Reading of the Bill which could well be used for the remainder of the Report stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure that it is altogether the fault of the Government side that we have made as little progress as we have on the Bill. We have to make some progress with the Bill. It is very important. I understand the interests of your Lordships. But I propose to continue the debate and to consult the usual channels at midnight.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it has not been the fault of the Government. I am not sure that that is strictly correct. Our Front Bench has not wasted any time, either at this stage or at earlier stages of the Bill. In fact, we have contributed a great deal to getting through the Bill—three days in Committee. The noble Lord himself will vouch for the fact that on that third day we made rapid progress. We are committed to giving the Government their Bill in due time. But we need time for an important Bill of this kind. As I said, some very important amendments are coming up and we cannot debate them at all hours of the night, particularly those of us who have been at this since three o' clock this afternoon. I do think that we could have a slightly more sympathetic response from the Chief Whip.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in the time we have spent discussing this point we could probably have dealt with an amendment. I propose to consult the usual channels at midnight.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("or
( ) the General Synod of the Church of England, church schools and religious bodies recognised as such by the Secretary of State, and any person exercising functions under the authority of any such institution.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I made it plain to your Lordships that this amendment differs from the other amendment. I wish to study with great care what has been said on the other amendment. It is an important matter. It is not a simple issue. I should like to return to this at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("or
( ) Her Majesty's Armed Forces, or any person exercising functions under their authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this amendment is to exclude,
"Her Majesty's Armed Forces, or any person exercising functions under their authority",
from the fast track procedure of this Bill. The amendment has the strong support of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who sought to put down his name but has written to me to say that he was unable to do so because there were other supporters.
It is accepted that the Armed Forces are subject to the civil and criminal jurisidiction of our courts and to the jurisdiction of the commission and the European Court of Human Rights, an international body to which there is an individual right of access, subject to the exhaustion of our domestic remedies. It is accepted that due account of the convention must be had by the Government, the Armed Forces and such persons. It is also accepted that the judgment of the ECHR in McCann in 1996, which was the SAS action in Gibraltar, remains the cause of deep dismay.
However that may be, your Lordships may well think that it is neither necessary nor appropriate that in this context alleged breaches of convention on a case-by-case basis should be dealt with by our domestic courts and that declarations of incompatibility as regards Clause 6(3) and (5) should not be granted to trigger ministerial remedial action under Clauses 10 and 11, which is the fast track procedure. It is not the business of government or of the judiciary in this context, on a case-by-case basis, to seek to construct—and this is a similar point—a uniform code of conduct for the Armed Forces from all signatory states in apparent conformity with the convention.
And why not? As your Lordships know, there is no uniformity as regards terms of engagement, discipline, service and so forth, among the signatory states. Each state has its own disparate provisions and system of maintaining good order and discipline. It is not the object of the convention, as, I remind your Lordships even at this hour, the distinguished president Rolv Rysell said, to impose rigid, uniform solutions, but, within limits, to recognise the rights of free societies to choose for themselves.
Would it not be contrary to good order and effective discipline to afford a domestic forum in our courts to every barrack room lawyer or disgruntled or aggrieved serviceman in which to allege breaches of the convention? I think back to my days in the BEF. There was always someone grousing about something. It seems to me quite incongruous that one can keep really good, tight discipline with the system proposed by the fast track procedure.
In conclusion, I make a short point. If we had not won the war there would not be any human rights convention. If there had not been good discipline in the forces they would not have won the war. The discipline and conduct of our Armed Forces, according to our long traditions, is essential to our national security. I know that it is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, as our number one priority. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the basis that it just keeps the Armed Forces out of the fast track. That is not exactly the effect of the amendment. If that is the intention it is not the effect. Subsection (1) of Clause 6 provides:
"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with one or more of the Convention rights".
1354
Subsection (3) goes on to define "public authority". The amendment will apply not only to the fast track legislation procedure in subsection (2) but the whole basic structure in subsection (1).
With all respect to the noble Lord, this amendment is astonishing. It would exempt the Armed Forces altogether from the jurisdiction of the English courts under the European Convention on Human Rights. The English courts know perfectly well—no doubt better than the European Court of Human Rights—the importance of discipline in the British Army and will apply the law sensibly and properly. British forces have an extremely good record on human rights. For example, in Bosnia, at great cost to themselves, British forces have preserved the human rights of the citizens of that country. But the experience of other countries demonstrates that armed forces can be, and frequently are, the most serious infringers of human rights. One has only to look, for example, at the situation in Argentina before the Falklands war. Therefore, armed forces above all need to be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is extraordinarily unlikely that the British Armed Forces will behave in this way, but the fact that it is extremely likely that they will not commit violations of human rights is no reason why they should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the English courts in that respect. There is nothing in the European Convention that is inconsistent with the maintenance of proper discipline in the Armed Forces. I believe that this amendment has no justification whatsoever.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to which my name has been added in the Marshalled List. I support it because I believe that Her Majesty's Armed Forces should be excluded from the embrace of the widely-drawn concept of a public authority. I have studied the explanations given at Second Reading and in Committee about how a public authority will be identified. I accept that it is wisest to leave it to the courts to decide as cases come before them. I do not seek to challenge that. The Armed Forces are a public authority, but I believe that special considerations apply to service personnel. We need to judge these against the arguments for not excluding the Armed Forces as a public authority from this Bill—arguments which say that exceptions lead to problems and that individuals in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force should have as much right to the protection of the convention as any other of Her Majesty's subjects.
But strong as these and similar arguments may be, they are not the only ones. Servicemen and women are subject to the Armed Forces Acts. There are offences of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, of disobeying a lawful command, and so on, which have no direct parallel in civilian life. These are enacted because they underpin and are vital to the operational effectiveness and discipline of the Armed Forces.
Without further elaboration, the conclusion is self evident. The Armed Forces may be, and often are, treated differently by legislation. Even though we have all-volunteer services, whose members are made aware of the particular constraints which will apply to them

1355
for as long as they remain in the forces, there have been moves to treat service personnel more in line with contemporary civilian practice rather than leave them without the ambit of civilian law. It is not the time to debate whether that trend has gone far enough. too far, or been altogether in the best interests of the country and the services themselves.
Several experienced voices have expressed concern about some of the changes to court martial procedures, the high level of litigation which now persists throughout the Armed Forces, and about other challenges to the responsibility and authority of command. An inference has begun to emerge that civilian-style management rather than military-style leadership is what the services should adopt, particularly in peacetime.
Of itself, each individual change may not be significant or even damaging, but the cumulative effect of a whole series of them is a different matter. The old adage of straws on a camel's back springs to mind. There is unease about the progressive impact of so much upheaval at the very heart of service discipline, ethos and culture, even though effort is made to work with the grain of the changes. It is against that background that I am seriously worried about further uncertainties which could arise in the Armed Forces if they are not excluded from the gamut of public authorities to which the Bill will apply.
How tempting, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, will it be for the occasional crackpot, barrack room lawyer, or hobbyhorse rider, to instigate proceedings once they can be brought in a local court. Would there be a yet greater increase in litigation tending, wittingly or unwittingly, to undermine the cohesion and normal command structure of the Armed Forces—structures which are the essence of military effectiveness? Is there any likelihood that incompatibility might arise between the Armed Forces Act and the convention? Is it not conceivable that convention rights may be added to one day? How should convention matters be treated if our forces are at war or on operations overseas short of war? How confident can we be that different British courts will adopt a consistency of approach when dealing with any service case? A difference between the services, on one matter or another, could cause great difficulty.
Even if every one of those concerns could be satisfied—at this late hour my list is far from complete—they all outweigh the arguments for not making an exception for the Armed Forces. Without an assurance that not excluding the Armed Forces as a public authority will not be detrimental to their effectiveness, we embark upon a risky course. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, this is not an academic exercise.
Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor advise whether the MoD and the chiefs of staff have been consulted? I hope that they have.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment. If it is adopted, service men and women would not, of course, lose their right to apply to the Strasbourg court. There are those who argue that that is too slow and
1356
subject to delay. Perhaps we could be told what effect the Bill will have on such delay. If most of the cases are dealt with in the UK, then surely the load on Strasbourg will be greatly relieved. I support the amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I respect what my noble and gallant friend said about the special position of the Armed Forces. However, I have had two telling experiences in the field in relation to human rights and the security forces. In the early 1980s I was sent as special rapporteur to Guatemala in order to report on the extent to which the population and the security forces were living in accordance with the United Nations' human rights rules. There is no doubt that in the extremely unpleasant situation which then existed in that country excesses were being committed by the security forces against the civilian population, which was not being controlled internally by the armed forces. I made reports which were accepted by the Government. We did everything we could by persuasion to improve matters.
I then moved to a similar inquiry in Northern Ireland. There was also concern that the way in which the security forces and the population interacted might lead to human rights abuses. It is perhaps a tribute to the Armed Forces, rightly mentioned by my noble and gallant friend, that even at the height of all the troubles the only derogation and reservation that this country had to make to the European Convention is set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill, and it is concerned only with the length of detention during interrogations. None of the other provisions of the emergency provisions legislation in Northern Ireland fell into the category that required a reservation. Indeed, noble Lords who have read my reports may have seen that for a period of seven years I was able to report to the House that the security forces had behaved with remarkable control and regard to the rules, and that they were ever ready to improve their performance in this respect.
That does not indicate a situation in which the Armed Forces in this country, as regards their human rights record, would have anything to be afraid of if they were subject to the oversight of the domestic courts in Great Britain. As regards Armed Forces personnel, I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord is not opposed to the right to a fair trial, for instance, at a court martial or to due process. I see that he agrees with me that he is not.
Is it not better that we should judge our own cases and allow members of the Armed Forces and those who have any complaint against them to go, first, to the British courts to see whether they can be vindicated rather than being the only people excluded as public authorities and the only people who have to go to Strasbourg or against whom the complainants would have to take the case to Strasbourg? I do not consider that the reputation, history and record of the Armed Forces that I have seen in operation in this country, let

1357
alone in Bosnia, requires any such exemption or exception and it does them less than justice to suggest that they need any such protection.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak immediately after the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I agree with everything he said. I wish to add only two points. I had the privilege of defending the United Kingdom against Ireland in the inter-state case. It was an unhappy case, with serious allegations of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment at interrogation centres in Northern Ireland. That case went before the European Court and I well remember that in the end every one of us on the government team considered that it had been beneficial for the issues to be aired as they were. Lessons were learnt as a result.
I never discovered any resentment on our side of the scrutiny that was necessary in that case on the part of the Commission and the court. Of course, it would have been very much better had it been possible to achieve speedy and effective remedies in the courts of Northern Ireland that would have made it less necessary for that unhappy matter to have gone to the European Court.
The second example was the McCann case. I fully share the criticism that has been made of the wafer-thin majority of the European Court in that case. What is more, I wrote about it in the Irish press, explaining my dissatisfaction with the judgment of the European Court. But again, I have no doubt that if the McCann case could have been dealt with by our own courts, using the criteria of the convention, it might well have led to a different outcome in Strasbourg. It seems to me that so far from having anything to fear about our own courts, the right and sensible approach by the Armed Forces should be to welcome the fact that those cases will be dealt with in the first instance by our courts and that, if the matter then went to Strasbourg, the European Court would then have the benefit of British judicial scrutiny of those matters.
The last point I make is that I am perfectly sure that the Armed Forces would not wish to be considered other than as a public authority. I cannot think of any greater public authority in this country than the Armed Forces and the police who need to be respectful, as they are, of the basic human rights and freedoms of us all but accountable to the courts, as well as to Parliament and the Executive, if they get it wrong.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my only complaint of the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is that it is made 47 years too late. The convention is already binding on us in its entirety. We cannot pick and choose which parts of it we accept.
The Armed Forces are, in the very nature of the case, a public authority, and thank God they are! The alternative, if they were not, is really too terrible to contemplate. Therefore, the only choice facing us is
1358
whether those rights are enforceable in Strasbourg or in this country. Having them enforced in this country, as well as its other advantages, is a great deal cheaper.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise from the Opposition Front Bench to support, in principle, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. In doing so, an important distinction should be made between two situations. The first is the situation in which our Armed Forces are ranged against a particular military target. It is widely accepted that, in those circumstances, the military target, if his human rights are abused, should enjoy the benefits of the Act.
But the situation to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway refers is in relation to the commander and the man under command. In that situation, in my submission, it would be wrong to give the man under command the benefits of the rights of the European Convention because then complete obedience to orders is required. The European Convention could or might interfere with the success of military operations. Therefore, to that extent the Opposition Front Bench supports the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is a great champion of European Community matters and law. Is he then saying that European Community law is wrong in forbidding sex discrimination in the Armed Forces? That is a prohibition which, as he will know, led to the various cases in which women in the Armed Forces were able to recover effective redress when they had been dismissed, for example, for becoming pregnant.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, that is an entirely different matter. I said that the Opposition Front Bench supports the principle of my noble friend's amendment. It may need refining to limit it to operational matters. I wholly agree that there may be circumstances in which such discrimination is wrong. I shall not go into the detail of what those circumstances are. I am simply talking about operational situations where it is absolutely essential that the orders given by a commander are obeyed and the commander cannot fear any kind of come-back based on the European Convention.
I add another matter. It has been said that these rights are already given to troops under the European Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. However, that seems to me to be not a final argument; because we now know that the Government do not intend to make the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights binding in this country. The matter will be up to our own judges. The fact that a particular jurisprudence may or may not have developed with respect to the commander and those under command in Strasbourg does not, therefore, answer the question.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment would exempt Her Majesty's Armed Forces, or any person exercising functions under their authority, from being public authorities under Clause 6 of the Bill. The

1359
noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is therefore right in his contention that this amendment, if accepted, would exempt them from being challenged under the Bill when it is alleged that their actions are contrary to the convention rights. What we have sought to do in Clause 6 is to set out a principle: first, that the effects of Clauses 6 to 8 should apply in the first place to bodies which are quite plainly public authorities; and, secondly, to other bodies whose functions include functions of a public nature. In the latter case, the provisions of the Bill would not apply to the private acts of the bodies in question.
Her Majesty's Armed Forces would seem to come squarely within the category of an "obvious" public authority and I cannot for one moment see what principal justification there would be or could be for excluding them from being a public authority under the Bill. Whether we have a widely drawn definition of a public authority, as we have in the Bill, or a definition based on a narrower list of specified bodies—which we do not have—the Armed Forces are obviously at the heart of government and ought to be included within any definition. I am not aware that the chiefs of staff have made any representations to government for an exemption along the lines of this amendment. The Government are plainly answerable in Strasbourg for the actions of the Armed Forces which plainly engage the responsibility of the state. Individuals who were aggrieved at the actions of the Armed Forces would, if the Bill were amended in the way proposed, still be required to go to Strasbourg to argue their case because they would be unable to rely on their convention rights before our domestic courts.
One major purpose of this Bill is to allow our citizens to enforce their convention rights in their own courts, and I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of cases will begin and end here. I therefore oppose the amendment and invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken both for and against the amendment. At this hour one does not want to go into a detailed analysis, but I just say that of course there is no issue of whether the Armed Forces are a public authority; of course they are. The issue is whether one should exclude them because of operational matters relating to discipline.
It is all very well but there are not many people in the Chamber who served in the previous war. There are not many people in the Chamber who have been on operations. Many of our operations are "near" war, short of war operations. With respect, I think that the House might defer to those noble and gallant Lords who have practical experience of operations, in particular the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who wrote,
"I strongly support your amendment to Clause 6 of the Human Rights Bill".
Why should he bother? Why should a man of that calibre bother to write to me along those lines, expressing his sorrow that he could not be here to speak?
1360
I am not prepared to pack in this amendment, but I would like the opportunity to read with very great care what the noble and learned Lord said and in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. On that basis and with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I should like to return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [Proceedings]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Nothing in subsection (I) shall prevent an applicant from bringing an application for judicial review provided that the court considers that he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not be moving this amendment. It is of great importance and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, wished to be here, as did the Master of the Rolls and other noble Lords. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate at this hour to move an amendment of this importance. I shall return to it at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
("(9A) The Minister who has power to make rules in relation to a particular tribunal may by order give that tribunal jurisdiction—

(a) to determine such questions arising in connection with the Convention rights, or

(b) to grant in respect of acts (or proposed acts) of public authorities which are (or would be) unlawful as a result of section 6(1) such relief or remedy of a kind that it has power to grant,

as he considers appropriate.
(9B) An order made under subsection (9A) may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the Minister making it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, perhaps I may deal also with the matters raised in Amendments Nos. 38, 66 and 73. As your Lordships know, the amendments to Clauses 7 and 20 respond to specific concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in Committee. He referred to appeals in asylum cases heard by the special adjudicator under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. He pointed out that the jurisdiction of the adjudicator was restricted under that Act to considering claims under the 1951 Convention on Refugees and suggested that the adjudicators should be allowed also to consider claims dependent on the European Convention on Human Rights. On that occasion, I indicated our preliminary view that the noble Earl was probably right and I also indicated-1 paraphrase, bearing in mind the lateness of

1361
the hour—that we would see what we could do to attend to his concerns. We concluded that the noble Earl's analysis of the 1993 Act is correct.
A person appearing in difficult circumstances before the special adjudicator would not be able to rely on the convention rights. He would not be left without any remedy under the Human Rights Bill, because he would be able to rely on those rights in separate proceedings under Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bill. The better course, however, would be for him to be able to rely on convention points at the time when the case was before the special adjudicator. I explained in Committee that that was our intention and that we would consider the form of amendment.
The outcome of our deliberation is the amendments currently before your Lordships. The effect of Amendment No. 30 is to enable a Minister to confer jurisdiction on a tribunal to determine convention issues or to grant a remedy where a public authority has acted incompatibly with the convention rights. The jurisdiction is to be conferred by order. It will be in addition to the existing statutory provisions relating to tribunal jurisdiction. In the particular case of concern to the noble Earl, it will enable the Secretary of State to confer jurisdiction on the adjudicator to consider claims relating to convention rights, notwithstanding the restriction in the 1993 Act, and to provide a remedy if a public authority acts in a way which is incompatible with those rights.
The intention would be to use the order-making power to extend the jurisdiction of the special adjudicators who hear asylum appeals so as to allow a person appealing on one of the grounds set out in Section 8 of the 1993 Act to appeal also on the ground that his removal from the United Kingdom would be unlawful under Clause 6(1) of the Human Rights Bill. An appellant who succeeded on that ground would not be granted asylum but would be irremovable from the United Kingdom and eligible for exceptional leave to remain. Therefore, the effect of such an order would be to make the ECHR jurisdiction in asylum appeals consistent with that in non-asylum appeals under Section 19 of the Immigration Act 1971.
The order conferring jurisdiction is to be subject to affirmative resolution under the scheme that we propose. We sought to make general provision of this kind rather than to operate directly on the Act of 1993. That is because we do not think it appropriate for a Bill of general application, such as this one, to remedy problems in a particular piece of legislation. Moreover, we are not certain that the problem identified by the noble Earl is necessarily confined to tribunal hearings in immigration appeals cases. We are not aware at present of similar problems arising from statutory restrictions on the jurisdiction of other tribunals, but if such problems do emerge we would look to a general provision which I hope the noble Earl can welcome because, although consonant with his approach, it goes beyond the ambit of his particular concern. We are looking for a general provision in order to deal with such problems.
I recognise that that is a short-term solution but, when a suitable opportunity arises, we will seek to amend the relevant primary legislation. On the basis of that explanation, which is as reasonably short as I can conveniently make it, I hope that the House will agree that the government's amendments meet a mischief which was identified. I also hope that the noble Earl will think that this is an appropriate solution—perhaps a little more so than his solution—and on behalf not only of the Government but also of your Lordships' House, I thank the noble Earl for his persistence in identifying that gap. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, to be given what one asks for in this House is a luxury; to be given more than one asks for is an exceptional luxury. I thank the Minister most warmly. I had intended to probe one or two points in the amendment, but the Minister has already answered entirely to my satisfaction the main question that I wished to ask. In any case, it is too late at night for looking gift horses in the mouth. I thank the Minister again and advise the House that I shall not be moving my own amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I very much welcome these government amendments. During the debate of the immigration appeals Bill I remember that the Minister indicated that the mere fact of incorporation of the convention would solve the Chahal-type problem. The advantage of these amendments is that, for the avoidance of doubt as well as dealing with any inconsistencies in primary legislation, they ensure that the position of adjudicators, and of all tribunals, can be dealt with.
I have but one observation to make. If only this had happened under the European Communities Act 1972 it would have been most beneficial as years were wasted in argument—for example, before industrial tribunals—as to whether they had jurisdiction to give effect to Community law. The advantage of this approach is that it will enable the Minister in charge of the procedures and the rules at each tribunal to deal with the matter tribunal by tribunal, without relying upon the command to the judges and tribunals to construe legislation where possible to accord with the convention. I therefore regard this as admirable as, for the avoidance of doubt, it deals with an important practical problem. I go well beyond the immigration sphere in saying so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of this Act do not affect any rule of law which prevents the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session in Scotland from reviewing the decision of the Lord Advocate as to whether or not to prosecute a particular individual.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 involves returning to an issue that I raised in Committee; namely, the question of whether the provisions of the Bill would have the effect of introducing into the law and procedure of Scotland review by the courts of a decision by the Lord Advocate as to whether or not to prosecute an individual accused.
When the matter was debated on the second day of the Committee stage on 24th November, at col. 803 of the Official Report, I set out the position that currently applies in Scotland. It is clearly an important matter. In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not repeat in detail what I said then.
The current procedure in practice is that neither the civil nor the criminal courts in Scotland will entertain proceedings, whether at the instance of an accused man or his alleged victim, seeking to review the decisions as to whether the Lord Advocate should prosecute in a particular case and, if he decides to do so, on what charge such a prosecution should be brought. There is also the position in relation to the procurators fiscal who, as your Lordships know, initiate and conduct summary criminal proceedings in the various sheriff courts throughout Scotland.
In moving the amendment, I do not for a moment suggest that all the activities of the Lord Advocate, and his colleagues in the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal service should be excluded from the ambit of the Bill. Indeed, I am sure that any Lord Advocate, discharging his duties as an independent public prosecutor, would not only wish to follow but would seek to enforce a policy designed to achieve adherence with convention rights. However, the courts in Scotland, at least until this moment, will not seek to inquire of a Lord Advocate why he has reached his decisions and will not therefore seek to review the soundness of them.
When the issue was last debated, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor promised to write to me about the matter. Again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for having taken the trouble to do so in ample time for me to put down the amendment. In his letter, the noble Lord confirms what had been accepted on all sides during our debates in Committee; namely, that the Lord Advocate is a public authority within the meaning of Clause 6. He also confirmed what I asserted in Committee; namely, that it is possible to envisage circumstances in which a decision as to whether or not to prosecute could arguably be said to infringe a convention right. He therefore accepted what I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been reluctant to accept when we last looked at the issue: that these decisions might infringe convention rights.
The noble Lord went on to suggest that it would seem natural for any judicial challenge to a decision to be brought, as appears to be the position in England, by way of judicial review in the civil courts. In a kindly manner, and with the sense of humour with which we now associate the noble Lord, his letter went on to reassure me by stating that he did not believe this should be a matter of concern. He stated that decisions not to prosecute have already been reviewed in England where the courts have not adopted the strict self-denying ordinance followed by the Scottish courts. I pause to observe that I had not previously associated members of the judiciary in Scotland with self-denying ordinances. He went on to say that the case law here—referring to England—has shown the courts to be very careful when exercising their jurisdiction. They have used their
1364
discretion to intervene sparingly and their role has not been to second guess the decision taken by the prosecutor.
I have no difficulty in accepting that were such a jurisdiction to be introduced in Scotland. it would be exercised with caution. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be a serious mistake to proceed along those lines—a view which I have reason to believe is shared by others involved in the criminal justice system in Scotland.
One thing that troubles me about this jurisdiction is that it is a necessary consequence of the Bill in its present terms which was entirely unheralded by any form of consultation, which yet again failed to receive any mention in the White Paper, and which so far as I am aware has not received any attention in speeches by government Ministers. Indeed, until the very helpful letter was received by me from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, no public recognition had been made by any Minister that the decisions of a Lord Advocate might be susceptible to review against convention rights. I have to wonder whether this is the correct way to go about introducing major constitutional change. It is a major change that will affect the constitutional relationship between the Lord Advocate and the courts in Scotland. Your Lordships are being invited to approve the provision without being informed of the considered views of those involved in the criminal justice system.
Not only the courts, but Parliament itself, has refrained from seeking from the Lord Advocate reasons why a decision has been taken in a particular court. That is evidenced by the practice observed by successive Lord Advocates in responding to Written and Oral Questions in Parliament; in the standing order which governs the remit of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in another place; in the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; and in the practice that has been observed in establishing and operating successive inquiries, most recently in the Dunblane inquiry following the tragedy in Dunblane.
Clause 26 of the Scotland Bill provides that in answering questions to the Scottish Parliament it is proposed that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General may decline to answer any question or produce any document relating to a particular criminal prosecution if he considers that to do so might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. It is therefore surprising that in one Bill this convention is being recognised while in another it is being breached to some extent.
As I have indicated, others share my concern. The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, to whom I have spoken since this matter was before the House at Committee stage, advises me that the Faculty of Advocates considers that there are strong public policy grounds for excluding the Lord Advocate's decision from review. The Dean's own view is that it is difficult to see how the system could function effectively if Crown Office decisions were open to challenge by individuals intent on causing delay, disruption and expense.
Notwithstanding the firm, albeit polite, terms of the letter I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not hold any great hopes of persuading the Government to change their mind. However, I do pose a number of questions which I hope will be answered and may prompt at least some movement on the Government's part. It would be of assistance to the House for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to inform your Lordships as to why there has been no consultation on this proposal. It might be helpful if he explained to the House, and ultimately to the courts which might have to exercise this jurisdiction, why it is considered necessary to depart from a practice that has served the criminal justice system in Scotland well.
Why is the jurisdiction to be one exercised by judicial review, which as I understand it would involve the jurisdiction being exercised by the Court of Session, the superior civil court in Scotland? That is a fundamental issue. That court traditionally has had no role to play in criminal prosecutions. Moreover, for the jurisdiction to lie with that court would admit the possibility of appeals to the Appellate Committee of this House. As noble Lords will be aware, there is no right of appeal in criminal cases from the High Court of Justiciary to the Appellate Committee, and hence there would be a novelty there as well. If there is to be this jurisdiction, should it not lie with the High Court of Justiciary?
These are important matters. It is most unfortunate that they arise without any proper focusing, either in a White Paper or any other quarter. I move the amendment in order to give other noble Lords present the opportunity of contributing to the debate; but, more importantly, I move it in order to enable the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to address and provide answers to the questions I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, it is unfortunate that matters of such immense significance so far as Scotland, its history and constitution are concerned are raised at the hour of midnight among an assembly which, while distinguished, is small in number. I share the serious concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, on this issue. Your Lordships will recall the more extensive explanation which he gave when this matter arose at earlier stages.
The problem may be one of interpretation and construction of the words "public" and "private". I venture to return to the suggestion that I made earlier that those words will require close construction. I have listened to much of the debate this afternoon, this evening and this night in order to try to obtain a clearer understanding of what they mean. While, as I suggested earlier, they are well used in England to try to work towards a distinction between matters which may be subject to judicial review and matters which may not, as far as I am aware no one has yet given a satisfactory, substantial construction and understanding of them.
It may be that in effect the words do no more than provide a label to represent those things which the courts will think it right to consider and those which they will not. If they are simply labels to refer to the
1366
supervisory jurisdiction, it may well be that the courts can continue to observe the respect which they have had or, as the noble and learned Lord put it, the self-denying ordinance which the Scottish judges have so far exercised. If that is what the words mean, it could well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as a public authority, is, where he is exercising the function of determining whether to prosecute or not, performing what in this case is a private function because it is a function which is not open to the scrutiny of the court. If that is what the words mean, I am satisfied that the amendment is unnecessary. If it is not, I continue to have the gravest concern about them. I too should be grateful to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate what the function, effect, purpose and object of this provision is and how he can, consistent with the long traditions of the office which he holds, see what has been a treasured and respected right disappear, if that is the intention of the legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am disappointed that I have to disappoint the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, and reply to the amendment myself on behalf of the Government. The reason that the Government are not willing to accept the amendment is that to do so would, given the central role played in our criminal justice system by independent public prosecutors, create a significant gap in the protection provided by the Bill. The amendments seek to restrict the ability of individuals to rely on their convention rights; the public authority in question is the Lord Advocate or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
This is a subject on which my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has written to the noble and learned Lord at some length. The noble and learned Lord complains about a want of consultation. We are content to consider any further representations that the noble and learned Lord chooses to make. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has already given a response which the noble and learned Lord has been good enough to acknowledge is a very full one.
It is the case that decisions not to prosecute have been reviewed in England where the noble and learned Lord suggests that the Scottish courts would be unwilling to review. Certainly, case law in England has shown the courts to be very careful when exercising their discretion in this area. I am sure that the courts in Scotland, when considering whether to review a decision concerning the bringing of a prosecution on convention grounds, would pay due regard to the factors which have influenced the prosecution and would allow the Lord Advocate an appropriately generous discretion.
The noble and learned Lord asks: why the Court of Session rather than the High Court of Justiciary? We will consider any representations that are made; but the immediate response would be that the natural court to consider complaints of denial of convention rights would be a civil court and not a criminal court. Nor, is it argued, is there any inconsistency with the established rule—established, I believe, since the Act of Union—that on matters of criminal law no appeal lies in Scotland to the House of Lords.

1367
For these reasons, although we are content to consider any further representations that the noble and learned Lord chooses to make or, indeed, that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Mackay, chooses to make, we do not share their concern about the implications of the Bill for the Lord Advocate or for the Director of Public Prosecutions. We therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have to say very frankly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I find his response disappointing in a number of respects. He did not explicitly face up to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, as to whether the decisions with which this amendment is concerned are what one would call public functions or private functions.
More importantly, he seemed to suggest that it was for me to go off and consult the major elements in the criminal justice system—the court, the faculty, the Law Society and any other body which might have an interest in this matter—and that it was for me to collect together any views they may have and consider whether any further amendment is required.
With the greatest respect, I find that mildly surprising. I would have thought that it was incumbent upon the Government, who, on any view, are introducing a constitutional change into the criminal justice system on the eve of handing over the criminal justice system to a devolved parliament, to seek the views on, for example, the critical issue of whether this jurisdiction is to be exercised by the High Court of Justiciary on the one hand or the Court of Session on the other. That is a matter I would have expected the Government to have
1368
raised with the Lord Justice General so that he could consult with his colleagues, and a report as to their collective view could then be made known to the Government so that they could consider the position and consider whether an amendment is required. I am quite happy to do so; but I have to say that it is a somewhat strange jurisdiction for an Opposition spokesman to have to exercise.
In the light of the invitation that has been given, I propose to do so; and in the light of the lateness of the hour, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 was originally grouped with Amendment No. 31. We should like to take this separately from Amendment No. 31. I wonder whether now would be the moment when we might hear from the Chief Whip.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. For the convenience of the House, I hope to make a statement after Questions tomorrow regarding further progress on the Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the National Lottery Bill [H.L.]
Monday, 19th January 1998.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber—a likely event—while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Advisory panels on selection of the body to run the National Lottery]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 15, after ("shall") insert (", after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to represent local government,").
The noble Lord said: I realise that the Minister probably will not agree to Amendment No. 1, but its purpose is to make sure that the advisory panel which will select the next operator has the widest possible remit. I hope that the Minister will agree that local authorities (which are very often involved in providing matching funding for the projects, or a degree of funding, and which will often be directly affected by the provision of lottery funds) should have some opportunity to put to the panel their views on who should be selected. I beg to move.
Lord Skidelsky: The purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to ensure the presence on the lottery advisory panel of persons with relevant business expertise. We wondered why such a panel was necessary in the first place in view of the fact, which was confirmed by the Minister on Second Reading, that there was no suggestion that the director general's selection of the
CWH 2
existing lottery operator was somehow flawed. We were bound to see this proposal in the context of the Government's determination to move the lottery on to a non-profit-making basis. Therefore, the amendment is designed to put on the face of the Bill the Minister's own assurance that members of the advisory panel will be well fitted to advise the director general by dint of their experience of the lottery market.
It is important to have people capable of evaluating bids on a business rather than on a political basis, so as to ensure the maximum revenue for the good causes. We believe that a reasonable expectation of profit is the best way of maximising the lottery's revenue and we want to ensure that this view is represented on the advisory panel.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to both noble Lords for the explanation of their amendments, and I well understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that they do not see the need for a panel in the first place. As he rightly reminds the Committee, we have no criticism—and we have made that clear—of the procedure for the selection of the first operator. However, the proposal for a panel, which was put forward in the White Paper, has the support of the Director General of the National Lottery and has—I shall not say survived—been welcomed in the consultation.
I say straight away that both of the points made by the noble Lords about the nature of the advisory panel are well taken by the Government. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that not only is it our firm intention to consult organisations representative of local government on this matter but also on the other matters on which he has tabled comparable amendments later in the Bill. If that saves time, I do not think any of us will regret that. I also confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said—in quoting me at Second Reading—that we intend, and have always intended, to recruit to the panel people with experience of business, and in particular with experience of the lottery business. However, we do not think it is necessary to include on the face of the Bill a provision requiring the panel to include these members. It is not the normal practice for Bills to include that degree of detail.
As I said, we agree that it is important for the Secretary of State to consult widely. I repeat my assurance that this consultation will include bodies representing local government because they have an interest in distribution matters and in consumer affairs. However, if we were to include only local government all kinds of other interests whom we would wish to consult would feel themselves excluded from the consultation. The legal phrase which I promise to use
only once is expressio unius est exclusio alterius. I do not think that we have enough Law Lords here to challenge my semi-modern pronunciation. We have much sympathy with the motivation behind both of these amendments but we do not feel it is appropriate that they should be included on the face of the Bill.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply. I very much suspected that he would not include the measure on the face of the Bill. However, I sought his assurance and I thank the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line I, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to strike out subsection (3) which requires the advisory panel to comply with any directions which it may be given by the Secretary of State. It is a drastic amendment but the subsection which we seek to remove seems to us directly to contradict the Minister's assurance that the process of selection will be objective, independent and more transparent.
The Government are setting up an advisory panel and propose to tell it what advice to give. We want to remove the Secretary of State's power to give such directions as will remove or limit the power of the advisory panel to recommend profit-seeking applicants. The emphasis in selection of a new licensee should be on maximising revenue for the good causes, not minimising profit for the licensee, and that is what this amendment seeks to secure. We would of course consider an alternative form of words designed to achieve that aim. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can confirm that the noble Lord is right in describing the effect of his amendment, but I have to disagree with him when he describes the effect which subsection (3) would have. It is true that subsection (3) enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the lottery advisory panel on selection which relate to the panel's functions and performance; but its purpose is not to give the Secretary of State control over the advice that the panel gives but rather to ensure the smooth operation of the panel. The Secretary of State is required to consult the director general on any directions that he makes.
Perhaps it would help your Lordships if I give examples of the issues which we envisage may be covered by the directions. They may include, for example, a timetable for the panel to deliver its advice to the director general; they may require the panel to give the director general not just its conclusion as to which person should be appointed to operate the lottery (as set out in the Bill), but also its reasons for reaching that conclusion (but not so as to breach commercial confidentiality); they may also require the panel to consider the basis on which the director general must select the operator (as set out in Sections 4 and 5 of the 1993 Act and in the directions issued under Section 11 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993). This latter will ensure, most importantly, that both the panel and the director general are working to the same selection criteria.
However, when the noble Lord says that the directions would tell the panel what advice to give and when he suggests that they would be concerned with
CWH 4
minimising profit rather than maximising good causes, I can assure him that that is not the purpose of the directions. The panel has to operate against criteria for selection which are set by legislation, rather than arbitrarily. The legislation requires that the selection should be made in order to maximise the return to good causes but also, as he will recognise, to protect the players in the National Lottery.
Neither of those charges have been changed and could not be changed by the directions. These directions come in the category which will occur again and again as we consider this Bill. In other words, we expect very little of the directions—certainly not that they should be fundamental—but we would, and could rightly, be criticised if we did not have that power in the legislation. Similarly, we could not set up an organisation such as the panel, or indeed the new opportunities fund, or NESTA, which we shall be considering later, totally free from the power of direction of the Secretary of State, who is, after all, representing the public. The power, therefore, to the director general as well as to the panel will not be used for narrow political ends, nor will the power to direct the advisory panel.
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I might ask the Minister a question. Are the Secretary of State's directions in subsection (3) to be made public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a very interesting question. We see no reason why they should not be made public. I do not think that directions to panels of this kind are normally made public, but in the interests of open government I am certainly prepared to consider that.
Lord Skidelsky: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
("(4) In section 20 of the 1993 Act (interpretation of Part 1) the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place—").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to trouble the Committee with the correction of a simple error. This amendment is required simply to place the definition of an advisory panel with the definitions in Part I of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993—that is, the part which deals with the operation and regulation of the lottery game—which is where it belongs, rather than with the definitions in Part II (which deal with the distribution of lottery funds) which is where the Bill, as printed, mistakenly places it. As the Committee will see, the amendment simply changes the position of the section inserted into the 1993 Act and, on that basis, it is entirely uncontroversial.
I queried the wording "at the appropriate place", which could give rise to the suspicion that we had not made up our minds exactly where it should go. That is not the case—the phrase is only used because it forms

CWH 5
part of a long alphabetical list which could be subject to change. However, on the basis that it is uncontroversial, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1,as amended, agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Financial penalties for breach of conditions in licences]:
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("contravened") and insert ("committed a serious breach of").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to protect the position of the operator against the change this Bill makes to the conditions in the licences. It is an example of something that occurs elsewhere in the Bill. I refer to a retrospective alteration of contract, about which the present operator has every right to feel aggrieved since it changes the balance of risk which the operator faces. We are not moving the amendment to deal with that retrospection, but we ask the Minister to bear it in mind when considering the amendment.
We agree on the need to fill a gap in the regulator's armoury—there is no argument about that—but the Minister was a little cavalier in his treatment of the effects of the financial penalties on the operation of the lottery. Any fines levied, he said, would go into the distribution fund for the benefit of the good causes. However, he failed to point out that any financial penalties incurred would be to the detriment of the prizes, which in turn would lead to lower sales, and that lower sales would mean less money for good causes. That is why we believe that financial penalties should be limited to serious breaches of licence. The Minister himself referred to fining for serious licence breaches and we seek to put those words into the Bill.
"Contravention" is perhaps a little too sweeping; we would like to limit the power in some way. We would oppose fines for technical violations, particularly when no significant loss to good causes arises. Our form of words,
"committed a serious breach of',
a condition in a licence, achieves that aim. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: We on these Benches support the amendment because we believe that there is a grey area which the amendment highlights. Although I understand the Minister's attempt to put something between revocation of the licence and no action at all, there seems to be a problem in that almost any contravention could be seen as a breach. That could include such minor things as a difference in the colour of the logo used. We would like the Minister to clarify precisely how he defines "contravened" because "a serious breach" is a clearer indication of what would be at stake.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is the first of a number of amendments to Clause 2 which are concerned with the power to fine the operator. I shall try not to trespass on the subject matter of later amendments. Let me first of all acknowledge that in his amendment the
CWH 6
noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is proposing not only a change of wording but the wording that occurred in the White Paper: I can hardly criticise him for that.
Secondly, let me assure him that we make no difference between "breach" and "contravention". am told that some lawyers make a distinction between what is appropriate for a contract and what is not, but there is nothing in it as far as we are concerned. The issue that we are dealing with in this amendment is the use of the word "serious"; it is not the use of the word "breach" instead of "contravention".
I am happy to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to give examples of the way in which it is proposed that this power should work. Section 5 and 6 licences under the 1993 Act—Section 5 being the licence to an operator and Section 6 being the subsidiary licence for a particular lottery game—are complex documents. As the licence could be breached in many ways and it would be difficult to define in advance when a breach is serious, leaving the provision undefined could be an invitation to litigation and muddle. It has been suggested that that could lead to a great deal of profitable fun for lawyers.
Perhaps I may give an example of that. A breach of contravention that occurred once might not be serious, but if it were repeated a number of times it would be serious. It is difficult to see how the introduction of the word "serious" into the legislation would deal with that problem of the cumulative effect. The amendment would lead to great difficulty for the director general in addressing the circumstances of whether or not the breach was serious. In the end, it is not a problem. The power to distinguish between what is a "serious" breach and what is not a "serious" breach rests with the director general. He will implement that power by deciding whether or not to impose a fine, and, if he does impose a fine, by the severity of that fine. The definition of the word "serious", therefore, will become evident as the director general implements these powers, for which he himself has asked.
The Bill does not require the director general to impose a penalty for all licence breaches. He will be prepared to discuss with present and future operators the issues and principles that will arise from the use of his powers and to deal with the matters they put to him. I am sure that he will take account of the views expressed by noble Lords this afternoon.
I advise the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that the fines would not be to the detriment of prizes; they would be taken from the operator's running costs. I acknowledge the validity of what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, that we need something in between the ultimate "nuclear" penalty of revocation of a licence and taking no action at all. The power to fine was flagged up in the consultation on the White Paper. It is accepted—indeed, welcomed—by the director general, and I hope that it will be accepted by present and future operators as a more refined and selective way of dealing with potential contraventions or breaches of the licence. I hope that

CWH 7
noble Lords will not only feel able to withdraw the amendment, but that they will also feel that it is not necessary.
Lord Skidelsky: I should like to come back on that. In his clear response the Minister did not deal with the context of the alterations of the conditions of the licence which have been imposed midway through the contract. The licence was applied for under one set of conditions, and those conditions have been altered half-way through. That alters the risks that the operator faces. It was in that context that I was urging the amendment. To say that the director general's job is difficult does not address my point. We accept that he has a difficult job. However, we are seeking at least to give him some guidance as to the considerations he should bring to mind when deciding whether or not to fine. That is the purpose of the amendment. I believe that there is an advantage in having it on the face of the Bill; as the Minister said, it was in the White Paper. He himself repeated it at Second Reading and he has not convinced me that it should not be on the face of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord makes an additional point to which, it is quite true, I did not respond in my first response. It is true, as he acknowledges, that the power to fine is one that was not available when the first operating licence was granted to Camelot, but it has, indeed, been flagged up in the White Paper.
I should emphasise that the terms of the operating licence to Camelot are not altered by the amendment. Camelot indicated in its response to the Government's White Paper that it was confident that it would continue to operate the lottery without serious breaches of its licence and that it was therefore comfortable with a fair regime of fines. If any difficulties arise, which I do not anticipate given Camelot's response to the White Paper consultation, I am sure that the director general will be pleased to discuss the implications with Camelot. In the meantime, the difficulties that I have indicated about introducing the word "serious" into the legislation still apply and still make it necessary for me to resist the amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: I am sure that Camelot is in favour of a fair regime of fines. It is precisely the fairness of the proposed regime that is in dispute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3. line 18, at end insert (", in accordance with a published set tariff or formula of financial penalties.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which carries on from the last amendment, is to look at the level of fines to be set. We have no difficulty with invoking fines for breaches; indeed, the director general has asked for that power. It is something that was probably overlooked when the original legislation was
CWH 8
drafted and the need for such an interim measure can now be seen without advocating the "nuclear" option which the Minister has mentioned.
However, as the Minister is well aware, there was a good deal of public outcry when Camelot announced that its directors were to receive large bonuses and high salary scales. That affected public opinion. One of the intentions in setting a tariff or formula was to make sure that public opinion could not result in political pressure being put on the director general to make the fines extremely punitive. The lottery operator, because it is looking to renew its licence at the end of its term, is hardly going to oppose fines and will try to act within the set guidelines. However, any bidders for the licence would not have to put aside provision which could not be quantified under set tariffs or formulae. I hope that the Minister will consider publishing guidelines on set tariffs or formulae. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As I indicated in my response to the previous amendment, the purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill is to ensure that the director general has the appropriate powers to enforce licences issued under Sections 5 and 6 of the 1993 Act. As I have already said, the power has been welcomed by the director general and implements the recommendations—and I did not say this—of the Public Accounts Committee.
"The Bill provides that in imposing a financial penalty, the director general may have regard to the desirability of deterring further contravention and of recovering any diminution of the sums paid to good causes which are attributable to the contravention".
I lay emphasis on the words "deterring" and "recovering", because these are two quite separate motivations for having fines.
It is conceivable, although I shall argue against it, that one could have a tariff of fines for deterrence, but it is difficult to see how you could have a tariff of fines for recovery. Recovery of moneys lost to the good causes could be of any size. They could be very large or they could be relatively small, and that part of the motivation for having a system of fines as proposed in Clause 2 could not readily be subject to a tariff. Clearly, it is important that where the operator has contravened the licence he is deterred from doing so again. Camelot has indicated in its White Paper response, as I have already said, that it is comfortable with a fair regime of fines. However, the problem I have outlined, of the two different purposes of the fining regime, makes it impossible for us to support the amendment.
The licences issued under the Acts are complex documents and they cover a wide range of different issues. There are many ways in which licences might be contravened, and in many instances the same kind of contravention might involve different degrees of seriousness. This comes back to the argument on the previous amendment. We do not believe it would be desirable or possible to produce a comprehensive tariff. If we look at fining regimes applied by other regulators such as, for example, the rail franchising regulator or the gas regulator, we find that, although they have had the power to fine for years, they have never found it necessary to have a tariff for it.

CWH 9
Any financial penalty imposed by the director general must be reasonable, and the Bill makes provision in new Section I OB(3), as inserted in Clause 3, for the operator to appeal to the court if it feels that the amount is not reasonable and the court may reduce or quash the penalty. We believe that the sensible and reasonable application of the power to impose financial penalties is the most appropriate way of ensuring that any penalties imposed are fair. The imposition of a tariff would not help with fair penalties.
Lord Redesdale: The Minister has given a very fair reply. It was not our intention to indicate that there should be a set limit on the size of the tariff. Indeed, any moneys that should have gone to the good causes should be compensated if the licence is in breach. That was why we added the expression "formula to be set".
One of the difficulties I have with the system as it is set out is that, although Camelot, the present licensee, may be happy with the actual formula set out, any new bidders for the licence will have the difficulty that there are areas where they will not be as competent in assessing the financial liabilities under contravention as Camelot, and this might put them at somewhat of a disadvantage. However, the Minister has said that there is recourse to the courts and he has outlined the purpose of the fine. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord moves to withdraw the amendment—I know it is not normally my job to delay him when he wants to do that—may I respond to what he said about future operators as opposed to Camelot?
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, criticised the fining regime as being one which was introduced in the middle of the licence period for Camelot. The point about future operators is that they will be preparing their applications in the knowledge that there is a fining regime. By the time we come to the next period of operating licences, any difficulties will readily have been resolved, and if they are not clear about anything in the fining regime they can certainly discuss the matter with the director general. None of the difficulties with the current contract which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, saw would apply in the case of a new operating licence.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply. He has mentioned that the lottery is developing along different lines from the original legislation. Perhaps we could look at this as the next piece of legislation affecting the lottery. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
(115) The Director General shall not impose a financial penalty if he is satisfied that the operator has agreed to take, and is taking, all such steps as it appears for the time being to be appropriate for the operator to take for the purpose of securing or facilitating rectification of the contravention in question.".").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment follows the general drift of debate which we have had on the subject of fines and financial penalties. The Bill as drafted makes no allowance for the operator to take any corrective steps or measures that may be appropriate before a fine is imposed. It seems to us that this would be desirable, as indeed it is desirable and relevant in other regulated industries. They have an opportunity to take corrective measures before penalties are due and that avoids unnecessary adversarial relationships which may result. It would allow smoother and more efficient management where there is the potential for improvement. An example of this is the railway industry, where South West Trains had a period of difficulty with a shortage of drivers, and this was the third call in three years, resulting in a breach of its franchising agreement. In this event the franchising director issued a draft enforcement, with which it complied in the following services in April and May. Failure for it to have done so would have resulted in a heavy fine of £1 million.
That example illustrates that there has been provision in other areas for corrective measures, and that has been to everybody's benefit. The Bill before us, however, has no provision for such measures. The Minister will be able to guide us as to whether that is an omission. I gather from his very reasonable remarks on previous amendments relating to fines and penalties that he is anxious to meet concerns in this whole area of penalties and fines, in order to create the right atmosphere and ensure the continued smooth running and efficiency which the lottery enjoys at the moment.
The present licence allows for corrective action to take place in the event of a satellite failure, which the operator is given six weeks to correct, and a shortfall in terminal count. Why could we not follow this precedent and allow a corrective period on the face of the Bill for anything which draws the possibility of a fine or penalty? It might be of a trivial nature—my noble friend mentioned the seemingly trivial example of the colour of a logo—but there are many examples between that and more serious issues.
We believe that that would add to the efficient running of the lottery, and remove the possibility of an unnecessarily combative or adversarial relationship between the Secretary of State and the operator. That might well be not only to the benefit of the present operator, but also to the preparation of bids by other potential operators who could make allowances in their preparations in the same way. I beg to move.
Lord Skidelsky: I would like to support Amendment No. 7. I sympathise with the purpose of the amendment. It seems to me to be a potentially useful addition to the regulatory armour which we are all seeking to provide, and to provide a cooling-off period before we get to the stage of fines. I think the amendment is very well worth considering.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Again I have a great deal of sympathy with what noble Lords are trying to achieve. However, I do not think the amendment will

CWH 11
actually achieve it. My difficulty comes down to a single word in the amendment which is before the Committee. The amendment states that the director general "shall not" impose a financial penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, refers to this as being an addition to the regulatory armour. I am afraid that, on the contrary, it is a reduction in the regulatory armour. If the amendment were to say that the director general need not impose a financial penalty if he is satisfied that the operator has agreed to take and is taking appropriate steps we would have no difficulty with it.
I have no difficulty at all with the argument about what the noble Viscount calls a corrective period, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, calls a cooling-off period. Both of those are sensible suggestions to the director general about how he should proceed, but to deny the director general the power to impose a financial penalty ignores what I said in regard to the previous amendment. It ignores the fact that fines are required for two purposes: first, for deterrence—and there, perhaps, the effect of the amendment might not be so serious—and, secondly, for the recovery of sums lost to the good causes as a result of the breach or contravention. If the amendment were carried as it is drafted we would lose the ability of the director general to act to recover sums that have been lost in circumstances where the operator was, quite properly, taking steps to ensure that it did not happen in future.
References have been made to other regulators. I repeat that this requirement that there should be no fine—and it appears that things are being put right—does not apply to other operators such as the rail regulator or the gas regulator. Where a licence holder has contravened the terms of its licence, I would hope that it would rectify the matter itself and not require prompting by the director general. It might well be inappropriate to impose a financial penalty if the breach has been corrected or is being rectified. I am sure that the director general will consider this, as he considers each licence breach and the action he should take. He is not forced by this Bill to penalise: it is an option open to him as appropriate. But the effect of the amendment is that the director general is prevented from imposing a fine if corrective action is being taken. This cannot be right.
There may be occasions when a fine is still appropriate even though the operator is taking action to prevent a reoccurrence of the breach—particularly if there has been an impact on the income to good causes. Equally, there may be occasions when no penalty is appropriate. If the amendment were accepted, an operator might deliberately contravene the terms of its licence hoping that the contravention would not be discovered, safe in the knowledge that if it were discovered it would merely have to put the matter right and would not face any further penalty. That is much further than the noble Viscount intended with this amendment.
I remind the Committee that the Bill provides a right of appeal should the operator consider that the director general has not acted reasonably, and if the breach is clearly caused by factors beyond the control of the
CWH 12
operator it is likely that the courts would regard this as having a bearing on the rightness of any penalty. I am sure that the director general will, as with previous amendments, take account of what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have said.
Having said all that, I would have no difficulty with a changed amendment along the lines that I have indicated, but I repeat my argument that it is not necessary, for the reasons I have set out. The director general will assess each breach on its merits. I urge the Committee to accept that not only is this amendment undesirable, but any more reasonable amendment would be unnecessary.
The Viscount of Falkland: The Minister has given a full and persuasive answer, as he normally does. There is a great deal of common ground between us, but it has been suggested to me that in the amendment before your Lordships the word "shall" after "director general" could well be replaced by the word "need", which would possibly answer many of the Minister's concerns.
However, I should like to read in Hansard what he has to say, which is very interesting. We may wish to reserve the right to come back to the matter at a later stage and produce something which might bring us even closer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Again I am risking my life when it is clear that the noble Viscount is going to withdraw the amendment, but I remind him that I did not only say that it would be unobjectionable if the word "shall" were changed to "need", but it would be unnecessary. It would add to the length of the Bill for no good purpose. The power of the director general not to impose a fine under these circumstances is already in the Bill.
I remind the noble Viscount of the legal maxim "unnecessary words turn sceptic".
The Viscount of Falkland: Very appropriate in your Lordships' House! If I may, I shall take this matter away and look at it further and reserve the right to raise it again at a further stage of the Bill if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Appeals against financial penalties]:
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert ("or
(d) that the contravention was due to circumstances beyond the person's contra).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to extend the grounds of appeal against financial penalties. That is very necessary in view of the rather unspecific nature of the fining regime.
As it stands, the grounds of appeal are very narrow: errors as to facts, procedural errors and errors of law. The amendment seeks to give the operator ground for appeal in the case where the contravention of licence was beyond his reasonable control. Some examples of

CWH 13
that have already been given: the lack of display of mandatory information by retail outlets or various kinds of freak events.
I am sure that no financial penalties will be awarded unreasonably, but it seems to me to be useful to have that rather broader ground of appeal, and I know that the operator would feel happier with that. That not only applies to the existing operator, but it would apply to future operators. It does not raise any serious issue of principle, and I would hope that the Minister would see his way to accepting it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord suggests in arguing the amendment that the grounds of appeal in Clause 3 are narrow. I cannot agree with that. The grounds of appeal are as to whether a breach contravened the conditions of a licence, whether the director general made an error as to fact, whether there was a procedural error or there was an error of law. What other kinds of error are there other than those of fact or law? Then, when we turn to the amount of any fine, the grounds of appeal are that the amount of the penalty is unreasonable, that there is a material procedural error or that the decision was based on a manifest misapprehension as to fact. Those grounds of appeal are about as wide as can be possibly imagined. I cannot accept that there is any significant restriction—perhaps the noble Lord can help me if I am wrong—in the power to appeal against the finding of the director general.
As I explained to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I am confident that the director general when exercising his power to apply a financial penalty would do so reasonably and would take into account whether the cause of a licence breach was outside the control of the licensee. If matters were to come to an appeal, then the court already has the power to consider whether, because outside factors contributed to, or caused, the breach, the imposition of a financial penalty or its amount is unreasonable.
Let us take, for example, the example of a power cut on a Saturday afternoon which caused all the electronic systems in preparation for the draw to go down. If the power cut were cataclysmic and affected large parts of the country, I am quite sure that the director general would say that there was nothing that any reasonable operator could do about that. If, on the other hand, the software used by the operator was inadequate and there was inadequate provision for back-up in the case of a relatively straightforward failure, the director general might say that they ought to have anticipated a failure of that kind. Under those circumstances, therefore, a fine would be appropriate, because if a draw in any one week had to be cancelled, clearly the loss to good causes would be very significant.
There is plenty of opportunity for the director general to think reasonably, rationally and sensibly about this without a force majeure principle being added to the face of the Bill. After all, there is case law running back over many years which implies a force majeure limitation on the application of contracts, and it would apply as much in this case as in any other.
Lord Skidelsky: The Minister has challenged me and I have to respond. The issue is not about any misapprehension of the facts; it is about the responsibility for the facts. That responsibility may well be disputable. Indeed, the Minister gave an example of such a possible dispute. To the Minister it was quite clear that in the case of a local power failure the responsibility would lie with the operator, but that is exactly something that the operator might seek to dispute. On the present grounds of appeal, however, he could not dispute that finding because it is not a question of fact; it is a question of responsibility for a fact. We are therefore adding a ground of appeal which is not covered by the existing grounds of appeal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should point out that the amendment does not address the problem that the noble Lord has identified. If the amendment was intended to affect the grounds for appeal, it should come at the end of Clause 3(2) rather than where it does. which is at the end of Clause 3(3). The noble Lord has placed the amendment where his force majeure argument applies only to the amount of the financial penalty rather than to whether there should be a financial penalty. I should have thought that the reasonableness of the fine derives from the culpability for the contravention and that therefore the kind of distinction which the noble Lord is asking the director general—and ultimately the courts—to make depends on the existing responsibilities of the director general, rather than on the need for this particular provision in Clause 3(3). I repeat that, subject to the courts, the director general has all of the powers and responsibilities which are necessary to protect operators in the circumstances which the noble Lord fears may arise.
Lord Skidelsky: This has been useful because in the course of our discussion we may have identified—I am not sure whether the Minister would agree—an additional ground of appeal to those already allowed. However, our amendment may not deal with that problem. In that case, it may be that we should try to fashion a form of words that deals with the issue of a dispute over responsibility for a particular breach. That is not covered anywhere at the moment and I should be happy if it could be inserted into the right place. I apologise if it is not where it should be.
If the Minister accepts that there is a ground here for appeal that is not covered by recourse to errors as to facts, procedural errors or some other error of law, I hope that we can find some way to include it on the face of the Bill; exactly how I am not quite sure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rather think that for the other reasons I have given we would resist even a rewording of the amendment to place it in subsection (2). If the noble Lord would like to talk about this between now and Report I shall be happy to do so.
Lord Skidelsky: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I make clear immediately that my interest in the Bill stems from the fact that in another place last week the Scotland Bill received its Second Reading. As Tam Dalyell observed in the Sunday Times yesterday, when in the late 1970s a Scotland Bill went through another place, at its Second Reading not only was the Prime Minister in his place but most of the Cabinet, and the Leader of the House stayed in his place for the duration of the Second Reading debate. Last week there was a fleeting visit during Second Reading by the Leader of the House and the only Ministers on the Front Bench were Scottish Office Ministers. I regard that as a matter of some dismay. It is a major constitutional change which will have implications right across our constitution and will have a significant effect on all manner of legislation that goes through this House.
It seems to me, therefore, that we should now, even in advance of the Scotland Bill receiving Royal Assent, be looking at legislation coming through your Lordships' House to identify as far as possible the extent to which any Bill deals with matters which, once the Scottish parliament is established—as it now clearly will be—would fall within the legislative competence of that Scottish parliament.
There are two good reasons for doing that. First, we would want to demonstrate that trying to tease apart what will continue to be within the reserved matters of Westminster and what will be devolved to the Scottish parliament is infinitely more complex than seems to have been appreciated to date. In our view, it is desirable to examine that as clearly as we can.
Secondly, there is an issue of principle here whether we should be legislating in respect of matters which in less than two years will be within the exclusive competence of the Scottish parliament. I would suggest to the Government that if they propose to legislate within the next 18 months to two years, they should be prepared to offer up a good reason why that is being undertaken.
My concern is this. Because I wish to see the union of our two countries continue, I would wish to see that the opportunity for conflict between your Lordships' House and another place and the Scottish parliament should be reduced to a bare minimum. Interestingly, the approach that I have been suggesting would seem to be finding favour with the Government themselves.
In opening the debate last week, the Secretary State for Scotland, Mr Donald Dewar, made the point that one of the first acts of the Scottish parliament would be to repeal and reform the last remnants of the feudal system in Scotland. I am not sure that this will be the most important thing to confront a Scottish parliament but, be that as it may, that is the way he put it. If the Secretary of State for Scotland regarded this as a matter of compelling requirement for reform, he could introduce it now. He has two Scottish Standing Committees in another place which have been wholly idle since 1st May, and they could have taken the matter through.
CWH 16
With this proposal, and in opposing that this clause stand part of the Bill, I am seeking to identify from the Minister at all points during this Bill—I hope I need make the point only once, but I shall make it repeatedly if necessary—those areas in the Bill that would fall within the legislative competence of the new Scottish parliament. I have selected this clause on which to make the point because, as he will doubtless be aware, in subsections (6) and (7) there is reference to an appeal being heard in Scotland in the Quarter Sessions: indeed, it goes further: any appeal on this section to the Quarter Sessions shall be heard in the Upper House. That last subsection absolutely makes the point.
It seems somewhat presumptuous of this Government and this Parliament to detail such things as in which part of the Scottish courts an appeal should be heard. It would seem to me that that is tacitly something which one would want to leave to the Scottish Parliament, to give it its own flexibility and its own discretion to determine in just which mode and in which place any appeal might be heard.
I hope that the noble Lord in responding can, if not now then at some point, give me an indication of what parts of this Bill would come within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament. I hope he will not try to fob me off with the rather obvious argument that the Scottish Bill has not yet completed its passage through Parliament and that it cannot be identified at this point with absolute certainty what will or will not remain within the Bill. There is a pretty clear scheme to the Bill, and he should be able to give me a clear indication and understanding of what matters fall within that restriction of legislative competence to the Scottish parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has a wide range of responsibilities and it is not always possible, just from the fact that he has given notice that he will oppose the Question that a given clause or schedule be part of the Bill, to know what his intentions are. However, he has made his intentions clear and I am grateful to him for that.
Let me first comment about the effect of the Bill on Scotland and the effect of the lottery on Scotland, and then come to the particular points he raised in his very interesting speech. First, Scotland will continue to participate in and benefit from the world's most successful lottery, which will raise about £10 billion for good causes over the lifetime of the current licence. As he recognises, the lottery is a national lottery and covers Scotland under no different circumstances than other parts of the United Kingdom.
As far as distribution of lottery money is concerned, in arts and sport there are separate Scottish distributary bodies which will continue to be allocated a statutory share of the proceeds based on the Barnett formula on population. The National Lottery Charities Board operates through a statutory Scottish committee.
The Millennium Commission and the National Heritage Memorial Fund have to date allocated a higher percentage of their grants than population share to Scotland. The UK operation allows these bodies to fund

CWH 17
very large projects in Scotland. The Scottish executive will continue to be consulted on appointments to UK distributing bodies, including the new opportunities fund which was announced in the Government's White Paper on reforming the lottery.
If the noble and learned Lord were suggesting—and I do not think he did explicitly—that Scotland has somehow suffered from the provisions of the 1993 Act, I think such a suggestion would be unjustified. He challenged me to go further than saying that to the extent that devolution brings changes they will be dealt with during the passage of the Scotland Bill. I forget the exact words he used but he described that as being less than satisfactory.
I recognise that the Scotland Bill, in the form that it ultimately reaches the statute book, will affect a number of provisions of this legislation. I give an undertaking to the noble and learned Lord that between now and Report stage we shall prepare a detailed explanation of the effect on this legislation of devolution in Scotland and indeed—if we can do so—of devolution in Wales. Although it would be quite wrong for us to hold fire on all other legislation while the devolution Bill is going through Parliament I do not think the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that—it is fair to say that the effect of devolution ought to be considered as part of the consideration of other legislation. I give the noble and learned Lord the undertaking that I hope he is asking for; namely, that we shall provide, in time for Report stage, an explanation of the effect on the lottery Bill of devolution in Scotland, and indeed vice versa, subject, of course, as the noble and learned Lord has acknowledged, to difficulties in dealing with two Bills which are going through Parliament at the same time. As I have said to other noble Lords, if the noble and learned Lord would like to discuss the matter with me between now and Report stage, I shall be only too glad to do so.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for responding in that positive fashion. What really troubles me is the following matter. I refer briefly to a parallel. According to the Government's White Paper competition policy will be a matter reserved for Westminster. However, as the noble Lord will appreciate, we have recently dealt with the Competition Bill on the Floor of the House, and it would appear that the Bill in its entirety is a matter reserved for Westminster. However, within such a Bill there are provisions that deal with powers of entry, powers of search, powers of seizure and related ancillary matters which give authority to decisions that might be taken. What I am anxious to identify is where there are such ancillary powers and ancillary purposes which more appropriately ought to be dealt with by a Scottish parliament, once it is established. Perhaps the Minister's reply will be that such and such a clause that would fall within the future legislative competence of the Scottish parliament should be removed from this Bill. However, I think it is desirable that we identify what those matters are so that we ensure we do not unintentionally introduce items of legislation which might lead to a conflict in the future. I have a slightly separate point on
CWH 18
a later clause to do with Scotland. However, at this stage I have no intention of expressing my intention to oppose the provision any more forcefully.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Although the noble and learned Lord has a valid point, I hope I have responded to it adequately. I think he is exaggerating the difficulties for this particular Bill. The Bill is concerned fundamentally with a national lottery and the issues with which we have been concerned so far this afternoon are about the operation of a national lottery. Those must be reserved powers for the Westminster Parliament. If the noble Lord has particular points about distribution—and it appears he does from one or two more specific amendments that he has put down—let us by all means discuss them. However, on the whole, those will he issues of distribution rather than the matters with which we have been concerned so far, which is the national UK operation of the National Lottery.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
("Holdings of the National Lottery Distribution Fund
HOLDINGS OF THE. DISTRIBUTION FUND
After section 21 of the 1993 Act there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Holdings of the Distribution Fund.
21A. The Secretary of State shall ensure that, by the end of each financial year, the Distribution Fund has distributed at least 40 per cent. of the sums paid into it by virtue of section 5(6) in that financial year."").
The noble Lord said: I can say with total safety that this is only a probing amendment. Indeed the purpose of the amendment is to question the Minister about the size of the National Lottery Distribution Fund, which at present is standing at over £31/2 billion and growing at a faster rate than it can be spent.
The purpose of the amendment—although I realise that the Minister would have great difficulty in accepting it in its current form, or probably in any form—is to ask the Government what amendments they propose to introduce in future to ensure that the sum in the National Lottery Distribution Fund does not grow to a huge extent without being spent, and to ensure that the provisions for distributing the money are improved so that the sum in the distribution fund does not decrease. It is not the purpose of the amendment to ensure that the money is spent unwisely because of haste. The amendment refers to the figure of 40 per cent. to indicate how little is being distributed. I am aware of the reasoning behind that.
However, people buy a lottery ticket knowing that a proportion of the money goes to good causes. They would be surprised to discover that so much of that money is held in reserve for quite a period of time. Indeed part of that £31/2 billion probably relates to money from the very first lottery.
One area we have been looking at is to see whether the Government have any schemes under way to decrease the size of the lottery as many of the schemes that are dependent on lottery money discover that they cannot spend the money because they have no matching funding. I know that later in the Bill the Minister will consider changing the matching funding provision. However, will he give an assurance that certain projects that at present will fail to materialise due to a lack of matching funding—even though they have been allocated lottery money, money which is at present sitting in the National Lottery Distribution Fund—will have some access to funds which will allow them to go ahead? I beg to move.
Lord McNally: I rise with some trepidation to support my noble friend because it is quite clear that the Minister has brought with him the Oxford book of legal putdowns to admonish us during the course of this debate! I believe that the point being raised by my noble friend is a worthy one. It seems to me that the Government are straining every sinew to make sure that Camelot does not make a penny piece of excessive profit, whilst not paying enough attention to what might be the real problem of the working of the National Lottery; that is, how the success that Camelot has generated is being used "downstream". I believe that, as a probing amendment, it is worth suggesting to Ministers that they should use some of their energy to look at this. We recognise that there is going to be an inevitable time-lag between application and expenditure and we accept that there has to be a proper audit trail to make sure that lottery money, public money, is being well spent and properly spent.
However, there is a body of evidence that there is a certain sclerosis in the procedure, a time lag, and also in getting lottery money to small projects, particularly small projects in sport, which is my own interest. It is a point to which we will return when we look at the means of distribution, and this probing amendment may nudge the Minister. The £31/2 billion is a formidable figure. The Minister may well know that that old campaigner on lotteries, Mr. Dennis Vaughan, has focused on that matter and will no doubt be supplying many solutions for expenditure. But he is joined by others who want to make sure that, as well as ensuring that Camelot has belt and braces as far as concerns probity, the success of the lottery is used effectively. That case is not yet proved.
Lord Rowallan: I also rise to back the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in his amendment. I gather that on 18th December at Second Reading the balance available was, as noble Lords have mentioned, £31/2 billion. I gather that in a month this has now risen to £4,627,574,589, which is an increase of enormous proportion. It is over a billion pounds in a month. One must ask whether these sums are really committed or it is money which is parked to stop it being used for other purposes.
The Minister very kindly wrote to me and explained what was happening to the money. In so far as it was difficult to distribute it, he said that the causes concerned actually received the money from the other source so that
CWH 20
the projects could get going. This leads us to ask, what is the period that we propose to allow people before the whole project becomes invalid and the funds are released? Does the Secretary of State intend to ask the distributing bodies to uncommit as much money as possible so that the endowment process can start?
These are important processes. We cannot have this balance going up by a billion pounds each month.
Lord Puttnam: I raise two points in opposition to the amendment, purely from a practical point of view. I spent three years as a member of the Arts Council lottery panel, distributing funds. Many of the errors we made early on were a direct result of submitting to what I can only describe as media pressure to get on and spend money.
I can understand the thinking behind the amendment. There is a great danger of creating artificial pressure to spend money. That is the way to make bad decisions, and we are living today at the Arts Council with a number of poor decisions that were made earlier on.
Let me make one other point. There is the added problem of artificial inflation being built into the building industry, particularly in the area of specialist building. There is enormous pressure to put up buildings and to make them, one hopes, beautiful. It is an area of specialist building that has brought enormous inflationary pressure, and anything that is done to increase that pressure can only work to the disbenefit of the entire arts funding system.
Lord Chorley: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is absolutely right to initiate a discussion in the guise of the amendment. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He has been at the sharper end. In my time at the National Trust I was more at the ceiling end. In the other charities I have had to deal with, I have been enormously impressed by the care which the various distributing bodies have taken. This may include helpful things like paying for a consultant to run a slide rule over an organisation to see that it is adequately and properly run. Inevitably there will he delays, and a lot of the delay is due to the fact that the amount of money that has been available is far more than anybody ever expected. There may be a large sum, and the distributing bodies are as conscious of that as anybody else, but they are being highly responsible and I do not believe that we should yet become too alarmed.
Lord Montague of Oxford: As a member of the Millennium Commission, perhaps I may point out that many of these projects are capital projects. We are faced with the drawings and foundations, and it will be some time before the bulk of the money starts flowing at a great pace. I am a little surprised by the figure of £1 billion in one month, but I do not believe that we should be surprised by what is happening. There will be a far faster flow of money out as these projects come towards completion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this most interesting debate

CWH 21
and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing it in the way that he did. I shall attempt to reply to the points that have been made.
The Government share the noble Lord's desire to ensure that the public benefit from lottery money, which they have contributed by playing the lottery, as quickly as possible. While we recognise that there is a large balance in the National Lottery Distribution Fund, it is important to understand the reasons.
Commitments made by the distributing bodies total £4.63 billion. This exceeds the total raised for good causes so far, which is £4.55 billion. I do not understand the explanation for the increase over the past month, but in case I do not receive an explanation before this debate is finished, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and place my answer in the Library.
Lottery distributors are able to make commitments in excess of their current income, provided they are prudent, precisely in order to ensure that lottery money reaches people as quickly as possible. Lottery money is public money. It is only paid from the fund to the distributors as and when it is needed. This is in line with long-established practice for payment of any form of public money, and helps to safeguard public funds. It also helps to maximise the interest earned on this money, which I emphasise, as I did at Second Reading, accrues to the distributors, not to the Treasury, and is used to fund even more lottery projects. It is important that we make the best use of lottery money. If the distributors were required to distribute a set percentage of their income within a given time period—which the amendment on the face of it requires, although I appreciate that it is only a probing amendment—they might distribute money, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam suggested, to projects that had not been properly thought through and which did not represent the best use of lottery funds, simply in order to comply with the requirement.
Most lottery money, as my noble friend Lord Montague pointed out, has been on capital projects. Inevitably, these projects take some time to complete—particularly some of the large projects that have received lottery funds—and this has meant delays between awards being announced and funds being paid out from the fund. Similarly, revenue projects such as those funded by the National Lottery Charities Board are often funded over a number of years and money is provided as it is needed.
The Government want to shift the focus of lottery expenditure from buildings to people. One of the benefits of this new approach should be that the benefits of the National Lottery reach the public more quickly. A number of other measures in the Bill should also help to achieve this end. The Bill proposes that the national endowment for science, technology and the arts should receive an endowment from the National Lottery Distribution Fund. The new good cause, the new opportunities fund, will also distribute funds expeditiously. And the power for distributors to delegate decision making should help ensure that there are no delays in distributing funds because of the large volumes of applications that distributors have to consider.
CWH 22
I am happy to be able to assure the Committee that as lottery projects have matured more funds are now flowing out from the National Lottery Distribution Fund and are currently running well in excess of the 40 per cent. of proceeds suggested in the amendment. In the first nine months of the current financial year, income for the National Lottery Distribution Fund has been £1,354 million; draw-down from the fund has been £812 million. This means that in the current financial year 60 per cent. of the money paid into the distribution fund has been distributed. Our estimate for total draw-down from the fund in this financial year is £1,135 million; this is more than double the amount drawn down in the last financial year.
I am confident that in future more than 40 per cent. of the annual income of the National Lottery Distribution Fund will be paid out each year. But if for any reason this does not happen, the effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to make payments from the fund to distributors or grant recipients who did not at the time need the money. This would not be the best way of safeguarding public money or maximising the amount available for good causes. Therefore, while the Government sympathise with the desire to ensure that the benefits of the lottery reach the public as quickly as possible, we think our approach is the best way of achieving that objective.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about matching funding. If an award has been made on the basis of certain expectations of partnership and an applicant now thinks that the partnership will not be forthcoming, it is open to the applicant to discuss the problems with his distributor. I emphasise, however, that in support of the arm's length principle it would not be for Ministers to intervene.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a totally irrelevant speech, talking as if we were discussing the profits of Camelot. He is perfectly at liberty to make that speech and to put down amendments, but the amendment is about the National Lottery Distribution Fund rather than about Camelot. I look forward to hearing from him on Report on the subject of Camelot.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, asked about the period of grace available to grant applicants if they cannot bring their project to fruition after being given a grant. As with the question of matching funding, it is for grant recipients to talk to their distributors rather than for Ministers to intervene. Generally speaking, distributors take a flexible approach and in the review of policy directions to distributors which we are making we shall consider that issue.
There is no question of asking lottery distributors to "uncommit" any commitments they have already made. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, distributors must not be pushed to pass money out before it is needed, which point is still valid. The correct control of public money, the Committee will agree, is that we should continue to encourage applications and to encourage such money as becomes available to be extended as quickly as possible. We should, however, certainly not be paying out money before it is needed, nor parting from a responsible control of public money, which has been the basis of our approach to these matters.

CWH 23
I hope on that basis that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: The Minister has referred to the need to safeguard public money, with which I agree entirely. But may I raise one issue that concerns me somewhat, particularly about the Millennium Commission?
We have already seen more than one key executive leave the Millennium Commission and the most recent departure was apparently based on the excuse that there was not much interesting work to be done. It is the nature of the job that the Millennium Commission has to do that there will be less interesting work to be done once the major distribution decisions have been taken. One wonders, therefore, what degree of adequate supervision of public money will extend over the possibly very long period beyond the millennium and beyond the distribution of grants, when there will be a temptation for those who have been working for the Millennium Commission perhaps to depart to do more interesting work.
There will clearly be a need to ensure that the commission has a viable and effective structure for protecting public money, just as long as there are projects awaiting final distribution or decisions are taken as to whether they are to be wound up because matching funding has not been found. I should be grateful if the Minister would give me an assurance that safeguards will be provided to ensure that the run-off period will be adequately provided for. Perhaps he could give me an explanation, if not now then at some other time, as to exactly how that will be done, particularly in the final months when it may be quite difficult.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, accurately describes one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Millennium Commission in that it attracts people who are interested in a quick return, who are interested in a finite project and who have something to contribute which may not last a long time. Under the previous government, as the noble Lord knows well, Barry Hartop from the Welsh Development Agency joined the millennium project for a pre-determined period of three months and then left. It is not likely that the millennium will proceed to its conclusion without other changes of staff.
The Millennium Commission requires a smaller management structure than other distributors and there is therefore no need—I take it that the noble Lord is referring to the impending departure of Eric Sorensen—for a separate chief executive post, which is why he will leave the Commission in March this year.
Restructuring is a necessary part of managing the work of a short-life body such as the Millennium Commission. However, we should not look at the Millennium Commission without recognising the extent to which it has effectively distributed very large amounts of money so far. There have been 131 awards totalling £1,277 million: seven of these awards have
CWH 24
been to umbrella organisations, so that over 12,000 projects have benefited. The commission has announced 27 partners in the millennium awards scheme.
A great deal has been done, and it is no criticism of the Millennium Commission to say that there have been changes in its personnel and in its management structure. The Millennium Commission is perhaps an extreme case of a feature of all new organisations. The kind of people who are good at starting things up are not necessarily good at carrying on in a steady state. The challenge to the Millennium Commission is to move from start-up to medium-term steady state without too much disruption. I emphasise that the Millennium Commission will not disappear when the millennium funding stream terminates: the monitoring of expenditure will continue and staff will be needed to do that. I am confident that the arrangements already in place will be sufficient for that purpose.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. It has enabled me to say something about the special case of the Millennium Commission and the plans which are in train to ensure that it works well not only as a start-up body commissioning new ideas but also as a body controlling them and seeing that they are carried through to fruition.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply. As I mentioned in opening this small debate, this is an imperfect amendment and I never suspected it would be accepted. However, I believe that this Committee is the perfect place to initiate such discussion, as we agreed that we shall not divide on any point.
It is useful for the Minister to put forward how he sees the working of the lottery being conducted over the next few years. As he mentioned, the lottery funds are public money. People have the right to see how there is going to be an improvement in the process of distribution, especially those many charities that have found themselves rejected—sometimes almost out of hand—because money is not available. I think putting this down in Hansard is a useful process.
I was slightly disappointed to hear the Minister say that, rather than improving the distribution schemes already under way, he is going to find new ways to spend the money, one of which is to set up the new clause. That I find slightly unfortunate, although the amount of money that has been generated by the lottery has exceeded expectations.
I believe that the £1 billion that has accumulated in one month might be due to the misinformation given out by myself at Second Reading that the distribution fund was standing at £3.5 billion. I said this stood at over £3.5 billion because I did not want to be a victim, a hostage of fate. The fact that it stands at £4 billion I find quite outstanding.
I would like to point out that it was not the purpose of this amendment to denigrate the excellent work that the distributors have undertaken so far, and this is a point that needs to be borne in mind—that there have been so few cases (although the press has special lottery reporters) of actual fraud. The National Lottery Distribution Fund as it stands is of benefit to the country

CWH 25
through the PSBR, but I think that as it is public money the Minister's views on how it should be spent were worth putting in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Randall of St Budeauxmoved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
WINDING UP OF MILLENNIUM FUND: ALLOCATION OF SUMS FOR CHARITABLE EXPENDITURE
(".—(1) Section 30 of the 1993 Act (winding up of fund allocated under section 22(3)(e)) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (I) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Any sums held in the Distribution Fund on 1st January 2001 and allocated under section 22(3)(e) for expenditure on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium shall on that date be reallocated for charitable expenditure under section 22(3)(d).".
(3) In subsection (2) the words "shall bear the same proportion to one another as the percentages for which they are substituted and" shall he omitted.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is simple. It is a new clause based upon amending Clause 30 of the 1993 Act, to do with the winding up of allocated funds.
I am glad the amendment has the support of both sides of the House. The names added to my amendment include the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, which suggests there is some degree of unanimity across the Committee, which I welcome.
Charitable giving from the general public remains the largest source of income for charities in Britain. Indeed, the country has built up a fine tradition of voluntary giving for charitable and voluntary organisations, choosing those that we want to support. However, recent evidence suggests that the growth in this support is barely keeping up with inflation, and the voluntary sector economy overall appears to be stalling after quite a good period during the 1990s.
This stagnation coincides with a period where charities and voluntary organisations are experiencing what seems like an infinite demand for their activities. The sector has been asked to take on new responsibilities in partnership with the Government, such as the delivery of the voluntary sector option of the new deal programme, which I welcome very much indeed. In this instance the Government have recognised the role the charities can play in helping young unemployed people back into work. Given this context, it is important that the National Lottery can support and develop voluntary sector activity, particularly at a local level.
When contributions to the Millennium Fund dry up—and the essence of this amendment is all about transferring money which currently is allocated to the Millennium Fund—it will, according to this amendment, be reallocated to charities and the voluntary sector. That is because the Millennium Fund is time limited and the money that currently goes into that fund will be released by about 2001, or probably sometime thereafter. That is the essence of it. Grants and this extra money would then be awarded by the National Lottery Charities
CWH 26
Board, or the money could be used to establish a new voluntary sector funding organisation. Therefore, there is an open option as regards which funding organisation would distribute the money.
I stress that the voluntary sector is not against the principle of the National Lottery; indeed, it welcomes an additional source of income. I know from the work I have done formerly as vice-chairman of the All Party Charity Group that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Home Office are examining the effect of the lottery on charitable giving. I know that is a matter of great concern. We need to have firm evidence to prove quantitatively what that effect is. There is widespread concern that the National Lottery is having that effect, particularly as regards raffles, street collections and door-to-door collections. I believe the case for further funding to charities is based upon three key arguments. The first is that fundraising charities are suffering because of a fall in public donations. The second is that the public either favour more money going to charities or think that they are giving more to charities than is actually the case. They believe that more money goes to charities from the lottery than is actually the case. Thirdly, there is a greater level of demand for funds from the National Lottery Charities Board than from any of the other boards. That is illustrated by the number of applications and by the number of applications as a proportion of the total award.
There has been quite an amount of survey work on the impact of the National Lottery on charitable giving. However, what we can deduce from the evidence so far is that fewer people are giving to charities. It is interesting to note that between 1993 and 1996 charitable donations declined by 20 per cent. in real terms. That equates to a loss of £650 million for the voluntary sector. In 1993 before the lottery began 81 per cent. of people taking part in an NCVO survey said that they had given to charity in the past month. In 1995 the figure was only 70 per cent., and in 1996 it was just 68 per cent. That is a 13 per cent. drop in three years. This to my mind is serious indeed. Part of the reason I move this amendment today is that I do not wish to see those small organisations lose out because of the National Lottery. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform your Lordships that there is a printing error that needs to be corrected in line 5. The word "march" should read "mark".
Lord Rowallan: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on what I believe is an important measure. I was delighted when the National Council for Voluntary Organisations contacted me about this matter as it is absolutely vital at this stage that we know what is going to happen to the 20 per cent. sum that is at the moment committed to the Millennium Fund. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, the voluntary sector has been hit extremely hard and it is important that we have something written into the Bill to make certain that that situation is rectified when the millennium money ceases

CWH 27
to go to that particular cause. Lottery money for the Millennium Fund should be made available for voluntary organisations working in the broad area of social welfare. Nobody, I hope not even the Minister, can deny that that is a prerequisite. There is a greater demand for funds from the charities board than from any other board—in fact, four times as many applications come to the charities board than to all the other boards put together. It is a very important sector. We have already seen the share going to the charities fall from 20 per cent to l62/3 per cent, and it is essential that it does not go lower than that. It is absolutely essential, as I have already said, that we sort out what will happen to the millennium portion. I hope we can agree that it can go to the voluntary charity sector.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I may speak against the proposed amendment. I do so with some trepidation, as chief executive of one the UK's major charities, but I also speak as someone with a great interest in one of the other lottery distributors. Had I more knowledge about the arts and sports distributors, I might also speak on their behalf. The pressure on each of the lottery distributors is intense.
We have heard from the Minister this afternoon the commitment that lottery money is to be distributed more towards people than buildings in future. I simply make the point that an important part of people's quality of life is the quality of the natural environment which they can enjoy, and which indeed some depend upon for their livelihood. We are in a situation where there may be many more applications to the National Lottery Charities Board than to any other single distributor, but we are also in a situation where the number of applications turned down is comparatively higher for the Heritage Lottery Fund than any of the other distributors. At the moment, the Heritage Lottery Fund can only fund one in ten applications for funds, whereas the National Lottery Charities Board at the moment funds one in five applications. There is considerably more pressure on the Heritage Lottery Fund. I am unaware, personally, of the pressure on the other two boards, but in the light of this I would certainly want to express caution that the millennium funding be re-allocated simply towards the charity sector when other sectors, which are equally important to the people of this country, deserve a share of the kitty when it becomes available.
Lord Chorley: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I have an interest to declare through the National Trust. I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord McNally: I am even more reluctant to intervene since, in my last attempt, the Minister managed to squash me, even without a legal quotation! I hope that when he reads Hansard, the Minister will see how unworthy was the charge of irrelevance about my last remarks.
Before I move to the substance of what I would like to say, I say to all interest groups that a worry I raised at Second Reading remains. The problem, at the end of the millennium, will not be what we do with the
CWH 28
millennium funds, but how we fight off the Greenwich project and prevent it from raiding other lottery funding because the Government will be spending almost any amount to make sure that that particular project is a "success".
I will not delay the Committee long with memoirs, but the road that led me to this place started over 30 years ago at University College, London, when I was a very humble sportsman. I was dragooned into taking part in Student Union debates because Dram. Soc. had so overspent its budget that it managed to persuade the union to raid the sports funds to make up its deficit. Since I was a debater, the sportsmen elected me to the student council and, as they say, the rest is history. It is true that over the years the same experiences recur: the muddied oafs and flannelled fools are quite often outmanoeuvred by more silver-tongued advocates when public money is up for debate. That is no less true now. The percentage of the share of lottery funds to sport has been reduced and at the same time, as we know, the impact of the lottery on the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has already cost sport some £135 million.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I make a plea. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has a great deal of emotional support on this side in arguing for the charities—those of us who are involved in various charities wish him well—but it is important that the various good causes do not start squabbling and trying to elbow one another out in this matter. There is a need for a cooler and more rational discussion of how these sums should be allocated. Sport plays an important part in the life of the country, and the sports clubs themselves play a big part in raising sums for charity. Therefore, I urge a little caution before powerful cases are made for one particular sector or another. We should try to take a balanced view of the needs of, contributions made by the various good causes when we take such overall decisions.
Lord Monro of Langholm: I shall follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord McNally has said, with which I agree. I had something to do with the National Heritage Memorial Fund in taking the legislation through another place and with the lottery legislation in the last parliament. I am therefore somewhat concerned that we are now opening up again the decisions about distribution.
I certainly do not hide the fact that I am very disappointed that the Government have introduced a sixth good cause. I felt that we still had some way to go on the five causes already in place which were generally agreed in the last parliament. I feel that many aspects of the sixth good cause should be the responsibility of government. I refer particularly to education and IT. I can think of no other position than that they should form part of normal government expenditure. Such expenditure should not come from lottery resources and thus from the five good causes that we already have in place.
It would be disappointing if a cantankerous argument about the distribution developed. A very good case could be made for spending money on almost anything;

CWH 29
it would be wrong to try to argue against spending money on good causes. However, we have five classifications now that are working well, and if the noble Lord, Lord Randall, provides that after the Millennium Fund closes down, its allocation could be distributed equally among the original five good causes, giving them the additional powers to spend it, we would certainly be moving in the right direction.
I know that we started originally on capital expenditure only. However, there is now a general move towards giving some money towards running costs and other expenditure. That will make the overall expenditure by the good causes easier to distribute and produce many more satisfactory results than we are seeing at present.
The whole operation of distributing the money has become woefully complicated. I know we have to be desperately careful about expenditure of public money, and this is what lottery money is, but we must try to simplify the scheme, not only in the form of the application but in the very long time it takes to reach conclusions in some of the organisations.
While I believe there is merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, was putting forward, by and large, I would be happier with the view of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we should move cautiously and try to prevent any form of disagreement between the five or six good causes and, if there is money over, there is no reason why they should not share equally in the money from the Millennium Fund.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: When I first saw this amendment I was rather sympathetic. Those of us involved in lottery projects will remember the strong views often expressed that more should be going to charity in the early days. That was partly because there was some slowness in distributing charitable funds in the first year.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a very good point. There was a brief, fleeting moment when I thought she was making it because of her responsibilities for one of the richest of all the charities, the RSPB. But she hastily put me right on that one.
In the amendment, we are dealing only with the distribution fund. I have one point that causes me anxiety about the wording of the amendment in any case, although I do not have the 1993 Act in front of me and therefore I may be misinterpreting it. There seems to be a possibility that this wording might lead us into the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke about on an earlier amendment, and that would be to accelerate the process of dealing with these projects in a dangerous way. I simply make that point in passing and I may be wrong about it.
However, I feel there is a strong case for saying that these funds should not simply be confined to the charities. There is a powerful case for saying that heritage and sport should also gain, and perhaps
CWH 30
particularly heritage, if only for the reason that so much of the millennium distribution was for projects which are natural partners of the heritage. Very often they were dealing with buildings, they were dealing with projects concerned with the natural environment and they were dealing in many cases with projects which fall within the general field of heritage. Therefore it seems to me particularly apposite that some of the money should go for that particular purpose, not least because it is clear from what has happened recently that the Heritage Fund has been under great pressure and has suffered particularly severely from the recent reduction in funding available to it. My noble friend Lord Rees may refer on the later amendment—and I certainly shall—to a specific example in Wales where a project involving the national museum has already suffered from just that effect and it had a severe impact on the much larger project of which it was part.
We need to have flexibility when we come to deal with anything that is left from the distribution fund. I agree with all my noble friends who have spoken, and indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we want to maintain flexibility. However, it would be totally wrong if this money were used for those things which are and should be the responsibility of government. We will come to that issue in a moment.
I shall not say any more about it, but I happen to think that what is being done in what I would call the "pilferage" clause, to which we are about to come, should not be extended further. We are dealing with the distribution fund. I hope at least we can have an undertaking that this fund will not be pilfered for government spending purposes in the way that funds will be later in the Bill.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: Before the Minister speaks, may I make a few comments which he may find helpful? The reason for putting the amendment down in this form is not that I want it to be a kind of "grab all" for charities. What I am attempting to do is to get over a message—this is why I have made it a probing amendment—that the charities have lost out as a result of the introduction of the National Lottery. The figure we have is something of the order of 13 or 15 per cent., which is a substantial sum of money. Because of the importance of charity work we do not want to be in a position where everyone is fighting. But there is a special pleading case for the charities because of the superb work which they do in this country. I doubt that there would be many members of your Lordships' House here today who would disagree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, made this point most eloquently. That has been recognised by the Government in their indicating that, with the new funding or the new distributor that they are establishing, the charities will be able to do some very good work in that respect.
To save the Minister time, I make just one other point on the distributors: I mentioned the National Lottery Charities Board; I also referred to all other charities. I am not particularly concerned about which distributor does it; I am concerned that the priorities of the existing

CWH 31
board regarding charities are maintained and that there would not be a loss thereby. I hope that those few comments might prove useful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had hoped that if I sat tight my noble friend Lord Randall would be fully answered by other speakers. We nearly reached that point, but then he fought back! I have to intervene. It has been a very interesting and worthwhile debate and has raised a number of issues which perhaps go wider than the wording of the amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will forgive my commenting on the background to this amendment.
First, let me explain the position on the millennium share, which we shall look at in more detail when we consider Amendment No. 16. I should explain the Government's position now, because it is the millennium money which they are proposing to distribute under this amendment. The 1993 Act is a tidy-minded piece of legislation, providing that, unless government and Parliament decide otherwise, the millennium share should come to an end on 31st December 2000.
However, the Act also sensibly leaves it open to the Government, with Parliament's approval, to extend the funding stream beyond 2000 if that should prove necessary. The then government announced on 18th January last year that they would bring forward an order extending the funding life of the Millennium Commission. This Government confirmed that as part of their announcement on the Millennium Experience on 19th June. On 1st October, the Secretary of State for Culture announced that the Millennium Commission would receive funding of some £2 billion over its lifetime. In the same announcement he also explained that, in order to meet the commission's cashflow requirements in the run-up to the millennium, the share would remain at 20 per cent. until autumn 1999, offset by a reduction to 131/3 per cent. thereafter. This frontloading effect accounts for some of the peculiar percentages in the Bill. The percentage would continue until the millennium funding totalled £2 billion.
The date on which that happens cannot, of course, be predicted accurately at this stage, but we expect it to be some time during 2002. The Government have not at this stage taken a view on what the position of the good causes should be when the millennium funding stream comes to an end. That indeed was an issue referred to by a number of noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord McNally—in an entirely relevant speech—and others gave support to the view that it is too early to make up one's mind about what is likely to happen some four-and-a-half years hence. However, I can assure the Committee that when we come to make further decisions on the good causes shares, whether in connection with the end of the millennium stream or otherwise, the Government will take very seriously the claims of the charities and the arguments of those who wish to see their share of the funding maintained or increased.
CWH 32
The second piece of background to which I have to refer before coming on to the argument on the amendment is the question of charities' income. My noble friend Lord Randall has referred to the evidence that exists on a drop in charities' income since the start of the lottery. It is a very difficult thing to calculate, as he will recognise. He chose to give prominence to the proportion of people giving to charities but it is very difficult in survey research—I speak as a survey researcher—to get people to remember, let alone tell us, how much they actually gave. The evidence, therefore, is by no means as clear as it might appear on the surface. The NCVO, to which I pay tribute in this respect, has been working with the Home Office, as my noble friend said. There has also been a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Charities Aid Foundation. Here I suppose I ought to declare an interest in that my wife is a trustee of the Charities Aid Foundation, and as vice-chairman of NCVO was responsible for setting up the research that has been referred to.
The process is not yet complete and we hope that we will have a better idea by the spring of this year. Meanwhile, I ought to point out that not only has the National Lottery Charities Fund made nearly 12,000 awards totalling £680 million, but the distributors have been making very substantial awards to charities. Sixty-four per cent. of all awards by all distributors go to charities and voluntary organisations—that is, a total of £2.4 billion. The balance between loss and gain for charities is by no means a simple matter to calculate.
Now, at long last, I return to the issue of whether it is right for the charities to leap in and, with what my noble friend Lord Randall admitted is special pleading, to seek to grab what will be available in four and a half years' time. There is a technical problem in that my noble friend's amendment would transfer to charities not only funds subsequent to the demise of the Millennium Commission, but also funds which had been allocated to the millennium good cause up to the end of its funding life but not yet paid to grant recipients. That would obviously mean disastrous results for the ability of the Millennium Commission to meet its own commitments. On those grounds alone, I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the amendment is flawed.
Of course, I understand that the true purpose is to ensure that the charities board picks up the whole of the millennium share, although I point out that a government who wish to undo the board's work could use their powers under Section 28 to reduce the charities' share again.
It comes down, as many noble Lords have said, to an issue of justice between the existing five or, as the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm said to his displeasure, six distributors. I repeat—I believe I have some support in the Committee—that it would be premature to make such a decision. There is the power to make a decision at a later stage. Any decision that is taken by the Government will be taken after full consultation and in full recognition of the strength of feeling which has been expressed in the Committee this afternoon and which

CWH 33
is evident in the country as a whole. It would be very unfortunate to introduce the amendment, or anything like it, into the Bill in the early stages of 1998.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: I very much appreciate my noble friend's reply. I was particularly pleased to hear him say that the whole question of good causes is to be reviewed and that a fairer hearing will be given to the charity sector—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I may intervene—"a fairer hearing"? I do not want to give that sector a fairer hearing than any of the other good causes but I repeat that it will have a "fair hearing".
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: Although I accept that this probing amendment is flawed, it gets over the principle that our charity work in this country is recognised as extremely good. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux moved Amendment No. 11:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
RING FENCING OF SUMS ALLOCATED FOR CHARITABLE EXPENDITURE
(". In section 28 of the 1993 Act (power to amend section 22), after subsection (2)(a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) no percentage lower than 16⅔ shall be allocated for charitable expenditure,".").
The noble Lord said: This is another probing amendment which proposes changes to the 1993 Act, and also an amendment to the Bill currently before us. The Government have established a new good cause, supporting health, education and the environment and a new distributor, called the new opportunities fund, to implement these initiatives. They are to establish an organisation to be called NESTA, the national endowment fund for science, technology and the arts. Many thousands of charities and voluntary organisations are already active in delivering schemes relating to health, education and the environment. The White Paper on the lottery, The People's Lottery, acknowledges that voluntary organisations already provide out-of-school programmes and that voluntary organisations are likely to play a part in helping to meet the targets set for this initiative, working in collaboration with local education authorities, TECs, libraries and so on.
The voluntary sector is pleased that the Government acknowledge in the White Paper, The People's Lottery, that the voluntary sector will have a role to play in designing and delivering the new opportunities fund's health and education programmes in partnership with public and private sector organisations. We need a clear indication from the Government as to what role they envisage for the voluntary sector under the new opportunities fund. Certainly, the voluntary sector will be keen to apply for grants under this new good cause. I would appreciate hearing the Minister's response on that point.
The Government have argued that the new opportunities fund and NESTA can be introduced "without any change to the original funding expectations of the existing good causes". The Government have diverted £1 billion into new good causes and have reduced the percentages for arts, sports and charities from 20 per cent to 16ࡪper cent. They argue that on the basis that the Camelot licence to operate the lottery specified that each good cause could plan to receive about £1.8 billion over the seven years of the licence. However, this does not take account of the fact that the lottery has been massively more successful than Camelot predicted and that, as a result, the distributors have already made general plans and specific commitments on the basis of this more optimistic return. The White Paper goes on to say that the Government will make sure that £1 billion is made available for the new opportunities fund and NESTA from lottery revenues by 2001. Over the next three years the lottery grant makers will have expected to receive £4.2 billion; instead they will receive £3.2 billion, almost a 25 per cent. reduction. What this means in practice is almost £70 million a year lost to the National Lottery Charities Board.
I appreciate that this reduction in lottery funding for the National Lottery Charities Board may, however, be compensated for, in part at least, by voluntary sector access to the new opportunities fund grants. The new voluntary sector is concerned that the sums allocated for distribution by the National Lottery Charities Board have been reduced to 16⅔ per cent, although it is acknowledged that some voluntary organisations working in education, health and the environment will be able to access the new opportunities fund.
Let me end by saying that we are not seeking to reverse the decision to reduce the percentage of sums allocated for charitable expenditure from 20 per cent to 16⅔ per cent. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that further sums allocated for charitable expenditure are not diverted to the new opportunities fund, or any of the other distributing bodies, at a time when funding to the sector is falling and demand for funding from the National Lottery Charities Board is growing. It seeks to ensure that the amount allocated for charitable expenditure remains at 16⅔per cent. I believe it would send a strong signal to the voluntary sector that the Government are serious in their commitment to the sector and recognise the need to ensure that the existing levels of funding to the National Lottery Charities Board are not reduced. It would also allow the National Lottery Charities Board to plan ahead with projects and fulfil its commitment to the voluntary sector. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the amendment, and I am particularly grateful for his assurance that he accepts that the percentage going to the National Lottery Charities Board should go down from 20 per cent to 16⅔ per cent. and that that is not what is in contest here. That means, of course, that the National Lottery Charities Board will receive its original expectation of £1.8 billion by 2001. That is relevant to Amendment No. 12, which we shall consider in a moment.

CWH 35
In view of the extended debate on the previous amendment, I do not need to go over all the general points, but I remind the Committee particularly of the point I made about the difficulty of singling out one good cause as a special case, and the fact that the lottery funds charities through all its good causes and not just through the National Lottery Charities Board.
The provision that the funds to any one cause could go down to 5 per cent is not an invention of the Government; it is one that was contained in the 1993 Act. I pay tribute to the honourable way in which the previous government adhered to the equality between the existing five good causes and did not seek—no doubt in spite of all temptation—to reduce or increase the funding to any one of the five good causes. I suspect that the outcry that would be experienced if anybody tried to increase the funding to one good cause at the expense of another is a very good reason for not interfering. That is a good reason why, although we propose to continue that power, at present we have no intention of making such a change and no intention of reducing the expectations of any one of the existing good causes.
Let me give some assurances to my noble friend about the Government's commitment to the charities good cause. First, barring the extremely unlikely circumstances in which lottery income for good causes is less than £10 billion in total, we will ensure that by the year 2001 it receives the £1.8 billion expected at the time the lottery started.
Secondly, the Government have taken no decision on how any returns beyond the £10 million might be allocated. There is no assumption that they automatically fall to the new good cause or any other. I can assure the Committee, however, that if we needed to decide how to allocate any extra returns we would take very seriously the case for extra funding for charities and indeed any case put up by any of the other good causes.
Thirdly, the Government have no plans to alter funding for the charities good cause beyond the proposal in the Bill to set its percentage share at 16⅔ per cent. Indeed, if they had any proposals they would have put them into the Bill. That is not what my noble friend is asking.
I also assure my noble friend that the new opportunities fund will involve the charitable sector in the design and/or delivery of initiatives in health, education and the environment. We have not yet discussed the new opportunities fund in detail and I can certainly expand on that when the time comes. However, the way in which the new opportunities fund will operate will be by ensuring that proposals are put forward, which may be different in different parts of the country, in order to achieve the objectives of the initiatives within the new opportunities fund. If charities put forward the proposals they will be treated at least as seriously as proposals put forward by any other organisations, either as recipients of funds or as partners or agents.
CWH 36
The case for flexibility on good cause percentages is as strong on this amendment as it was on the preceding amendment, and I hope, in view of the very moderate way in which my noble friend has moved it, that he will feel impelled to withdraw it as he did the previous amendment.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. The Government's attitude to this is fair and correct, and although at this stage one cannot expect any financial commitment, I am sure the principles on which my noble friend presented his case will be widely acceptable to people within the charitable sector. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [The new good cause and the re-allocation of lottery money]:
6 p.m.
Lord Skidelskymoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 30. after ("for") insert ("such").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's approval, I shall give a background to our general philosophical opposition to Clause 5, without which my amendments and those of my noble friend Lady Rawlings will not be fully explicable.
The general aim is to protect the principle of additionality by finding some way of stopping, not just this Government but all governments, diverting National Lottery money to programmes that should be publicly funded. I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said at Second Reading:
"The problem is that the Bill goes a long way towards destroying the principle of additionality"—[Official Report, 18/12/97; co1.761.]
I hope the noble Lord will be able to support the amendments when he comes back; we are moving to protect that principle.
I remind your Lordships of what the Prime Minister said.
"We don't believe it would be right to use lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibility".
Those were wise words. There are two sound principles underlying that. First, ongoing public services should not depend on variable, voluntary contributions. Secondly, National Lottery money should not be diverted to pay for what is essential at the expense of what is merely desirable. The National Lottery should not come to be seen as a sort of painless extra tax for every spending programme the Government choose. That is why I am a little uncomfortable about calling it public money. I know that is the convention into which we have slipped. But it gives a better idea of the proper limits of National Lottery spending to call it "private" money which is voluntarily subscribed for a variety of good causes.
As I understand it, the Government are now interpreting additionality in a different sense from that used by the Prime Minister. According to the Secretary of State, the new opportunities fund will only support initiatives additional to core programmes. The Secretary of State gave as examples of core programmes school

CWH 37
buildings and National Health Service beds. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when he says that his understanding of core programmes went somewhat beyond the provision of National Health Service beds and school buildings. On that kind of definition, we shall soon have school textbooks and medicines being provided from National Lottery moneys. Almost anything can be represented as additional if the Government play fast and loose with their understanding of core programmes.
The new good cause is worryingly open-ended both as regards scope and finance. Surely the Government regard the training of teachers to use computer technology as essential for raising school standards. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, never stopped talking about,
"guaranteeing access for every school and college in Britain to the benefits of the information superhighway".
A clearer case for a self-accepted government responsibility can scarcely be imagined, yet a major part of this programme is to be hived off to the National Lottery.
In her winding-up speech at Second Reading my noble friend Lady Rawlings referred to childcare. The provision of universal childcare facilities was a Labour manifesto commitment, yet the National Lottery will provide £220 million for childcare in addition to the £80 million recently announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "Additional to" today, but who is not to say, "substitute for", tomorrow.
Let me briefly turn to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendment No. 12 seeks to ensure that National Lottery money should not be applied to programmes already being funded by the Government. The test of government responsibility here being proposed is an historic one. Government are assumed to be responsible for activities they are already paying for. It is as simple as that.
Again I reiterate, my purpose is to narrow the scope for government simply to divert National Lottery expenditure to whatever cause they want as they now have in this rather elastic concept of the new good cause. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the concept behind these amendments and I apologise fully for not being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was speaking to them. It is rather unfortunate in one respect that when the lottery was first envisioned and the legislation went through originally the word "additionality"—although I do not like the word—was not placed on the face of the Bill. In one respect the previous government were guilty of a failure in that regard. I do not believe that any government, of whatever political colour, will ever be able to resist the urge to use lottery funds for very admirable cases.
As I stated at Second Reading, the schemes outlined under the new opportunities fund meet with public approval and indeed meet with approval from Members on this side. The big problem is that this is so open-ended. Indeed, one problem we face is that many of the schemes which will in future make up the new
CWH 38
opportunities fund have not seen the light of day or even been thought of. Whereas the new opportunities fund will be made up of new initiatives, as seems fit, one problem is that such items could well fall into areas that would normally be paid for by the taxpayer. Therefore, if the idea of additionality was being adhered to, they would fall outside the scope of lottery funding.
I support these amendments, but I fear that the Minister will, as the sixth good cause is already such an integral part of this Bill, reject the proposal for many good reasons. If the Minister is to take this road, although it is not the intention to go into causes or areas that would be affected by additionality, which are at present serviced by taxpayers' money—I realise he was only using an example of NHS beds. although it was a fairly narrow example—I hope he can give us as strong an assurance as possible that as a prime consideration the Government will try to pursue the idea of additionality. I hope he will give us some indication at Report stage whether the word "additionality" on the face of the Bill would meet with support from the Government.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that the Minister will give us some very good reasons, but I am afraid he is more charitable than I am. I doubt very much whether he will give us good reasons on this general point of principle.
One advantage of having been Secretary of State for Wales is that one has been responsible for the whole field of domestic government in part of the United Kingdom and therefore one has a fairly clear view of the responsibilities of government, what one has to provide for and what one has to find public spending for. It is clear that the new tasks that are to be funded by the lottery, that have been selected by the Government, are all, and without exception, causes that would normally be funded by public money—the taxpayers' money—and be the responsibility of the state. To pretend otherwise is simply to deceive.
The Government have found it convenient to use lottery funding, despite the pledges given previously, for expenditure that should have been the responsibility of the Treasury, I suppose so that they could say they had met a manifesto commitment not to increase expenditure—a commitment of the previous government. It is as simple as that. However, it has happened and we shall be told no doubt when we press one or other amendments at Report, as I hope we shall, that this is a wicked act by hereditary Peers in defiance of the elected House.
I give notice that if no hereditary Peer tables an amendment and presses it, I shall certainly do so and I hope that noble Lords will support those amendments when we reach the Report stage. We are having a general debate in which we cannot press the amendments today but the principles are extremely important. We have now reached amendments to what I have called the "pilferage" clauses; that is. the clauses which take money from those areas which the lottery was committed to support. As regards the specific amendment I am in some difficulty because I am not sure that my noble friend moved the amendment, and

CWH 39
he was speaking to a grouping that has changed since he saw it. I imagine that he was speaking to Amendment No. 12. I certainly think that this is a suitable opportunity to make the point which will come up again in later amendments; namely, that we should seek to prevent the Government taking further steps down a road which seems to me totally unprincipled and in defiance of the principles on which the lottery was established. I refer to the lottery which was described earlier as the most successful in the world; the lottery which was established by the previous administration and which is now being diverted and distorted by the present administration.
Baroness Rawlings: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 17. This measure is straightforward and goes to the core of the whole Bill. It seeks to enshrine additionality in the Act. We have heard a clear explanation of this from my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and a powerful speech from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. This matter was Conservative policy. It was also favoured at the time of the previous Bill by the party opposite, so I shall be brief and say I trust the Minister will support this amendment.
Lord Rees: I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. The general principles have been amply illuminated by him and indeed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I am sure that each noble Lord, if he searches the area with which he is most familiar, will be aware of particular projects that will be damaged by the Bill.
I wish to give one particular example, with which I am a little concerned, because it exemplifies several points. First of all, I refer to a possible breach of the principles on which the whole scheme was originally constructed in 1993 with the approval and subsequent affirmation and support of the present Government. Secondly, there is an element of retrospection in this particular case, which I am sure on analysis noble Lords from whatever party will find unattractive, and, thirdly, it happens to affect Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said robustly in relation to Scotland that he would explain how the operation of the Bill will interact with the plans for devolution for Scotland if it is carried into law, which seems likely. He spoke a little sotto voce about Wales. It may be slightly smaller—only 3½ million people compared with 5 million north of the border—and we are being given a slightly less effective chamber. As I voted against the whole principle of devolution I do not complain at that. However, I do not think on this occasion the noble Lord should be let off the hook. I hope he will at some point explain for us people who live west of Offa's Dyke how the—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope I can close off a possible diversion which I created by my own hesitancy, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, rightly said. Any undertaking which I gave to consider the effect of devolution with regard to Scotland I also give, without qualification, with regard to Wales.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rees: That is reassuring and will be met with approval by the people who live west of Offa's Dyke, when they hear what the noble Lord has said this evening.
I refer now to a particular case. I think it is only right to do so because one wants to move occasionally from the broad principle to particular cases with which one is familiar so that the Committee and indeed the country outside can judge the merits or otherwise of this piece of legislation.
Noble Lords, particularly those like myself and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who come from west of Offa's Dyke, will know that there is a great scheme of urban redevelopment in Cardiff Bay. He may blush a little, but I think a great deal of the credit for that scheme is owed to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. As part of that scheme of urban redevelopment which is being carried forward under this administration, the Museum of Wales—here I must declare an interest because I was until recently on the court and council of the national museum, and I am still a member of one of the committees—has a subsidiary body, the industrial and maritime museum. The museum is to be closed to make way for development and will possibly be rehoused if the funds are available.
An imaginative scheme has been devised. It will cost a little, but these schemes do cost a little. An application was submitted earlier in 1997 under the second round of the major assessment programme for museums, libraries and archives. That was nearly a year ago. There were minor hiccups and the application by the national museum was amended and resubmitted. It was eventually turned down at the end of November 1997. I will say at once that part of the reasons given for turning it down was that not all the criteria laid down by the Heritage Lottery Fund were met. Further—this was stated clearly by the director of the fund—the cut in funding which has reduced the available allocation for heritage purposes made it difficult to take a decision in favour of this worthwhile project. I believe that must encompass the cut which is implicit in the particular measure which we are considering today. That is why I say there is an element of retrospection here. The museum had proceeded on the basis that there probably would be sufficient funds. It was never told back in the early months of 1997 that the project was quite impossible on the funds available; that was never mentioned. Now this has become a major factor it is unlikely that the funds will be made available for the resiting of the industrial and maritime museum.
Added to this—I hope I may share my anxieties with other noble Lords—it is suggested that the national museum should take over the mining museum at the Big Pit at Blaenavon. It is extremely unlikely that that will be funded. If that is the outcome no part of the United Kingdom will be left with any industrial, maritime or mining museums.
I see a frown passing over the normally sympathetic face of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which shows that he must be struck with the force of my arguments. I hope that he will be so struck hereafter. I would not

CWH 41
expect that now; I know that papers will be thrust into his hands. His devoted civil servants will give him quite a different view of events, but if that is so of course I shall stay to listen to his reply to the debates. This is the kind of situation that arises when governments blunder into this field and cut across the basic principles on which an extremely worthwhile piece of legislation was introduced in 1993.
As I said, I know at heart that the Minister is a sympathetic and understanding member of the Front Bench, so I hope that he will go away and reflect on the instance that I have outlined. I am sure that every noble Lord here, given time and a wish to proceed on this front, could also reflect on this. Perhaps the Minister will take Clause 5 away and think very hard indeed about whether it is consistent with those principles and whether it is likely to be acceptable to the country as a whole when people realise the implications of what the noble Lord is arguing for.
I very much hope that the Minister will have second thoughts. If not, the implication must be that he will go off to his other noble friends and to his right honourable colleagues in government—for example, to the Secretary of State for Wales—and say, "I am terribly sorry, but you must treat this as part of your expenditure, and if you do not have the resources in your present budget, you will have to go back and raid the contingency fund of the Treasury". That would be quite a difficult case for the Minister to sell to his colleagues. I hope, therefore, that to ease himself out of difficulties and relieve himself of the burdens which may otherwise fall on his devoted colleagues in government, he will take serious note of the arguments we are advancing from this side of the Committee.
Lord Rowallan: I rise quickly as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned that much maligned breed, the hereditary Peer. As I believe that I am the only hereditary Peer in the Room (apart from our august chairman) I certainly support this motion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think the Committee will agree, from the force with which the arguments have been made, that to many noble Lords this is the most important single issue in the Bill. I certainly treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. I am very glad that the issue has been raised in this way because it gives me an opportunity to correct a whole series of misconceptions about the Government's approach to the lottery.
From the outset, let me stress that this Government's commitment to additionality can be in no doubt whatever. We argued vigorously for it in opposition at the time of the passage of the 1993 Act and it remains central to our approach now. That is clear, if only from the statement from the Prime Minister which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has quoted and which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, has included, with only minor changes, in her amendment, Amendment No. 17. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be grateful to her for her acknowledgement of his debating skills.
There is a fundamental misconception when anyone—noble Lords or otherwise—seeks to argue that any item in arts, sport or heritage spending is not core
CWH 42
expenditure while any expenditure on health, education or the environment is core expenditure. That is the fundamental misconception. Expenditure on the five original good causes proposed in the 1993 Act was not in spheres in which there is no core expenditure. The whole existence of the Department of National Heritage, as it then was, was testimony to the fact that that government, like this one, considered that public support of the arts, of sport and of heritage (and, indeed, in a different sense of charities and of the millennium project), includes elements of core expenditure. What the Government were seeking to do then was to add to core expenditure new expenditure from new funds—lottery funds—on things which would not otherwise have been supported. I shall come to the issue of definitions in a minute. The starting point that there was no issue of additionality in 1993 is wrong. Also, the concluding point that there now appear for the first time to be issues of additionality (because the new opportunities fund is to act in the spheres of health, education and the environment) is equally false.
Of course there are elements of core expenditure, very large elements of core expenditure, in health, education and the environment. If I have given the impression at any stage that core expenditure in health was confined to things like hospital beds, I gave a false impression and I apologise. With regard to health, the environment and education, just as for the arts, sport and heritage, there are many things that it is desirable for government to do which are simply not possible within government's programmes and priorities. For any of these items of expenditure, whether they fall within the definitions of the 1993 Act or of the Bill, it is possible for non-core expenditure to be funded from lottery funds. There is also the possibility of argument about what is core expenditure and what is not. However, the black and white case that has been put (that it is wrong to spend lottery money on health, education and the environment and right to spend it on arts, sport and heritage) simply does not stand up.
This lottery supports different kinds of things from those on which the Government can and must spend money. Additionality can be achieved if the lottery supports different kinds of things—the kind of innovative projects that would never be high priority for government funds given the many other demands on the Exchequer or the kinds of things that are not absolutely necessary but which are highly desirable in a civilised society. That was the rationale behind the original good causes in 1993 and it holds good for the new good cause as well.
Given the other pressures on the Exchequer, it is inconceivable that we would be contemplating provision for out-of-school learning and childcare, and healthy living centres in the way that is proposed—important as their benefits will be—without the lottery.
Additionality can also be achieved by providing support in particular sectors on a scale which has never been affordable before. It might mean making available across the country what previously has been possible only on a very small scale and for those who could afford it. That is true of both the out-of-school initiatives and the healthy living centres. Through a mixture of

CWH 43
very limited government funding and local initiatives, there are currently some very good examples of such projects but, without the lottery, there is no possibility that they could be set up on the scale now contemplated. The White Paper gave a number of examples, but I shall not take up the time of the Committee by referring to them.
An important aspect of lottery funding closely linked to additionality is its potential for injecting significant resources into an area over a limited period in order to produce a change in provision. The investment, on a scale unprecedented in recent years, which the existing good causes have made in our cultural and sporting infrastructure is one such example. It is an important feature of the NOF initiatives as well: investments over a short period of time to make up for years of too little training for serving teachers and librarians in information and communications technology; a one-off investment in digitising content; and the establishment of out-of-school learning and childcare and healthy living centres on a scale which has never before been contemplated, still less achieved.
Important as the principle of additionality is, I am afraid that there is no practical way in which it can be enshrined in legislation. I believe that there are other, more effective, safeguards.
Let me refer to the wording of the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, suggests that the new good cause should not provide funding that is already provided by the Exchequer. I listened to what he said at Second Reading and he defined additionality. He said:
"It is not an addition to existing Treasury money; it is money spent on things that are not being done".—[Official Report, 18/12/97; co1.737.]
That is the broadest possible definition that I can imagine, and yet he claims that he is seeking to narrow the definition of additionality. If he wanted to narrow the definition of additionality, he should turn back to the speech by Mr. Robert Key in Committee on the 1993 Act on 25th January 1993, which I quoted at Second Reading. Mr Key said:
"the Government will not make any case-by-case reduction in conventional expenditure programmes to take account of lottery proceeds. The Government will continue to provide the finance necessary from within public expenditure programmes to enable their policy objectives to be achieved."—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/93; col. 804.]
It is clear from the variety of definitions which have existed over the years, and the refusal of the previous government under pressure from the Opposition to include a definition of additionality, that there is no readily available definition open to us. If a hypothetical Treasury were to stop spending money on hospitals, and Ministers instructed the new opportunities fund to launch an initiative funding hospitals, that would be perfectly legal under the definition offered by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Is that what he really wants?
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, attempts a different approach. Lottery funds, her amendment says:
"shall be used only to pay for programmes that are additional to core Government expenditure and not on those things which are properly the responsibility of Government".
CWH 44
I have acknowledged the way in which she has used the Prime Minister's wording and only slightly changed it, but what is core expenditure, and how can it be defined in legislation? I know these are phrases we use in trying to convey the concepts simply, but when it comes to a court having to decide what such a definition means in a particular case, then we start to have problems. We all have our own views on those functions which are central to government in a civilised society. I suspect that, across the political divide, unless we are going in for zero budgeting, there is more agreement about such core expenditure than is sometimes revealed by cross-party rhetoric. What is "properly the responsibility of Government" is a question at the heart of political debate in the country, and not a clearly defined matter which courts can determine.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, attempts a different approach again—a requirement on distributors to include in their strategic plan a statement that their funding is additional. That is rather like saying that, because I put something in words, it immediately becomes a reality, but it is no more realistic than the other definitions that have been attempted.
I cannot think of any other way in which additionality could effectively be enshrined in legislation. There is no point saying that spending shall be additional because one would require a definition. Given the different aspects of the principle which I have outlined above, I think it would be impossible to draft. Any kind of detailed definition in law would open up all sorts of possibilities for legal challenge, profiting no one except the lawyers.
Trying to define additionality legally is like hunting for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Even so, it might be worth pursuing if the principle were genuinely under threat, but it is not. Quite apart from this Government's firm commitment to the principle illustrated by the Prime Minister's words, we can rely on the distribution bodies to be stern defenders of the principle. Whether or not they are also responsible for Exchequer spending—some, like the Arts Council are, whereas some, like the National Lottery Charities Board are not—they know well that if they were to allow some of their lottery spending to leak into areas which are not additional, they would be teetering awkwardly at the top of a very slippery slope. That is a phrase which was used antagonistically by noble Lords at Second Reading. Last, but not least, I know from responses to the White Paper that organisations and individuals, not forgetting Members of this House, are deeply attached to the additionality principle. So are we.
I hope that, on further reflection, and remembering in the case of the Opposition their own party's view in 1993 that it would be impossible to define additionality in legislation, the noble Baroness and the noble Lords will agree to withdraw these amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: I must say I have never heard a thinner argument than the one the Minister has just put forward. I speak as someone involved in the 1993 legislation. It may have been impossible to define

CWH 45
"additionality" but, my goodness, we all knew what it meant and we did not expect our government, or now the present Government, to devolve into a new concept of the sixth good cause. The subjects in the new sixth good cause are all those which should have been the responsibility of government. They should not be the responsibility of the lottery, which is there specifically to help all those who were unable to get help in other ways.
We always made the point that government expenditure would never be reduced because of lottery expenditure. Here the Government have not only moved entirely away from that but set up a new class of support for various causes, all of which, though we cannot argue against their being good causes, are the responsibility of government. It is government who are using the lottery to avoid proper public expenditure.
Lord Skidelsky: The only reason that additionality has arisen as an issue is that the Government have put in a new good cause. That is why there is pressure on the word—because it is difficult for them to say that the new good cause is not an extension of existing government responsibilities. That is why we have been trying to limit it in some way. As my noble friend Lord Monro said, no one had any doubt that the previous five good causes were not being supported by the government, were not part of the traditional area of government responsibilities, that it was desirable to spend money on them but not justifiable to raise taxation for them. People understood that and there was no big argument about it. Now with the new good cause there is a lot of argument.
I agree with the Minister that there is no absolute distinction between essential and desirable expenditure. It is a continuum, but where along the continuum you are is very important. A rough and ready distinction between the two is understood by most people when you give concrete examples. Everyone understands that defence should not be paid for by the National Lottery but, on the other hand, the restoration of historic buildings could well be. If you ask why defence and not historic buildings, you might find yourself in trouble, but it is a well-understood distinction.
Similarly, education is a publicly-funded service in this country. Therefore, measures to improve education should not be paid for out of National Lottery money. Undoubtedly, we could go over to a private system and we could say we will not fund education any longer; it will be paid for privately. Then there will be private money coming into it. However, this Bill is a back-door to doing these things, which is fundamentally dishonest.
Unless you keep some of these common-sense distinctions in mind, you have no safeguard whatever against the principle of additionality being used as a cloak for substitutability. In other words, you simply shrink your existing expenditure and put more and more lottery money into it because you do not want to raise taxation. The whole purpose of the amendment is to prevent that. I am not sure that we have achieved the right words, but it is an attempt to cut the link between existing programmes and lottery money. Unless we find some way of doing that, I predict that more and more
CWH 46
lottery money will go into these core services at the expense of existing allocations. It will be popular, it will be easy for the Government to do it, it will be satisfying people's wishes, and there will be no point at which the process stops.
Let me in conclusion refer to one example given by the Minister. He said that the National Lottery money for education will not really be going into ongoing programmes. There was a backlog of teachers to retrain in computer technology, a backlog of librarians: once we have done that, we will be able to reduce the expenditure enormously. He presented it as a kind of one-off thing. But surely he knows that cannot be so.
Technology is not static. It is always improving. There will always be teachers to train and retrain, librarians to train and retrain; computer technology is improving all the time. It is not something you do for three years and then say you are finished with it. That is why I made a very important point that ongoing programmes should not depend on variable voluntary contributions. I am afraid that the Government have started down this slippery slope. That is why, even if we have not found exactly the right formula for doing it in our amendment, we would like to return to the issue at Report stage, hoping we can improve. I beg leave—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord does that, I owe the noble Lord, Lord Rees, an apology for not having referred to his specific point. I cannot believe that in the early part of last year there was "a cut in funding"—his words—for the Cardiff Bay Museum which was caused by anything in this Bill. But I will certainly write to him and to other noble Lords who expressed an interest—and that clearly includes the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—between now and Report stage.
Lord Rees: Before the Minister sits down, he may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that when the application was put in originally there was no suggestion that there were inadequate funds. I said this quite clearly. One of the reasons was that not all the criteria had been met, but more particularly that now there is a shortage of funds. I said that that must inevitably be a consequence of this measure. I hope the Minister will look into it, but I did not want him to pursue a hare which I did not run.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a matter for the National Lottery Heritage Fund, but I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord and send copies to any other noble Lords who are interested.
Having stood up to apologise for not having referred to that specific point, I must return briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. When the 1993 Act was passed, nobody in government claimed that there were not elements of arts, sport or heritage expenditure which were not core expenditure. What they said—and it was at the time a mere assertion because there was no evidence—was that lottery money would go to projects which were additional to the core expenditure. That is exactly what we are saying now about health, education and the environment. There is no difference in principle between the two. If the

CWH 47
noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, thinks there is a difference, did he disapprove of lottery funds going to schools for sports and arts facilities under the existing regime, because they of course are additional to education expenditure, even under the previous government?
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may respond quickly. I am not against the new cause in toto. Of course I am not. I am not proposing that Clause 5 be cut out. I am proposing to limit it, and I am exposing a problem and a slippery slope. The Government ought to take this seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert ("of which sum no less than 11) per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure wholly in Scotland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I entirely support the line taken by my noble friends who contributed to the previous debate. Having said that, it follows that I can be a little more brief in speaking to my own amendment.
I suspect that I may be even more sceptical than my noble friends about the uses to which money under this new good cause will be put. Whether it is truly additional or not, it seems to me to be beyond doubt that it will be used for the funding of activities in health, education and the environment which would or should otherwise be part of the autumn allocation of public resources. If that is the case, it seems to me to follow that the amount that is to be spent should be distributed on the same basis as general taxation would otherwise be distributed in the autumn.
That means, in the relationship between England, most particularly Scotland, and Wales, the money should be distributed according to that formula which is now known by the shorthand of the Barnett formula. If the noble Lord wishes to announce to a startled Scotland that the Barnett formula is no longer to he in place even in the Moses Room, I have no doubt that that news will travel quickly back to Scotland.
What the amendment seeks to do is to use exactly the figures that are to be found in the Barnett formula, namely where there is any increase in the amount of resources put to health, education or whatever, the proportion of that increment going to Scotland should be 10.66 per cent. That is how I suggest we should approach it here.
Unless I have completely misunderstood the position—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it could be that the entirety of that 13.5 per cent. that is to be allocated for expenditure connected with health, education and the environment could be expended in England. There is no requirement whatsoever that any part of it be spent in Scotland, any more than there is any requirement that any part of it be spent in Wales.
CWH 48
When we get down to such matters as health, education and the environment—all three matters which are to be exclusively within the remit of the new Scottish parliament—it seems to me to be a most extraordinary arrangement to be proposing to put in place. If I understand the scheme, a Secretary of State who will have no expertise and no connection with these activities in Scotland will be able to give directions and set about giving advice to the new opportunities fund as to how the money is to be expended. Does the Minister believe that in Scotland they will be satisfied that, with 129 Members of the Scottish parliament dealing with issues of health, education and the environment, the only contribution that will be made in the allocation under this fund is that one out of 12 members shall be appointed by an English Secretary of State to have some reason to make Scotland his or her special care?
I am very serious about this. I believe that it is one of the points on which there could be a very real conflict between Westminster and the new Scottish parliament. For the broad reasons that I have already spelt out, I am clearly of the view that at all possible cost that should be avoided.
The amendment may not be the precise way to achieve this. But it seems to me that we need to have something far more responsive to the needs of the people of Scotland and those who are best able to express those needs, namely the Members of the Scottish parliament, not just one person who happens to sit on the new opportunities fund board. It seems to me that first of all we have to make clear that it is not merely a consultation requirement, and distribution is left entirely at the discretion of someone this side of the Border.
We would only avoid the threat of real conflict if we determine now, in advance, what proportion of funding goes to Scotland. We may want to elaborate on this further. We should also have in place some mechanism that makes it clear how those who are most expert in Scotland—and I think the same argument would probably apply to Wales—decide how that distribution should be achieved.
Clearly, here in the Moses Room I shall not press this matter further but, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated, I view this matter with such alarm that I have to say to the noble Lord that he must anticipate that we will return to it at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I confess that I have some hesitation about supporting an amendment which specifies a particular percentage. It may be wholly appropriate, and I see the strength of my noble and learned friend's argument where it applies to health and education and matters of that kind, which are at the heart of the Secretary of State's responsibilities and will be at the heart of the responsibilities of the new Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. If I hesitate it is because I suspect that the Minister will get up and say that "Ah, Scotland and Wales have had rather more than that percentage in their share of the distribution of arts and heritage and millennium funding, or may have done, and we do get on to slightly dangerous ground if we specify percentages."

CWH 49
However, my noble friend has identified a fundamental point about which I would like further guidance. He spoke as if the guidance that can be given and the direction that can be given under this Bill will all come from the Secretary of State for Culture. Indeed, I think my noble friend Lord Rees made almost the same point in an intervention on an earlier amendment. My understanding of legislation has always been that the word Secretary of State is a collective term in a Bill; it applies as much to the Secretary of State for Scotland as the Secretary of State for Wales. I suspect, therefore, that the answer will be that if the matters come within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Wales, guidance and direction can come from that Secretary of State, and not from the Secretary of State for Culture.
That then raises an even more difficult and fundamental point which reinforces precisely the case that my noble friend was making earlier for clarification, because, of course, many of these responsibilities of the Secretaries of State are about to be taken over by the new bodies in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, we really must know who is going to be responsible in this situation. Is the direction and guidance not going to be given by the Secretary of State at all but by the new parliament or the new assembly?
The Minister, very reasonably and properly, undertook to come forward with a full statement of the position before Report stage, when referring to an earlier amendment. I was concerned at that time. I nearly rose to say that, while I was grateful for the undertaking, it did create a difficulty because if we only received the statement at that time it might be very difficult to put down amendments, although in this House we are able to table amendments at Third Reading in a way that is not possible in another place.
We are in a difficulty here because on an absolutely fundamental area we are now in doubt about who is to do what, and what the position is. The points made by my noble friend about the role of the Secretary of State have brought this out clearly. It is an extremely significant matter.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. He is absolutely right that in legislation one never finds anything other than reference to the Secretary of State, because the responsibilities of Secretaries of State shift from time to time. Sometimes their responsibilities are merged.
He is absolutely right that in the ordinary course of events, if we did not have a devolution proposal before us at the moment, the Secretary of State would be able to go to the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask his view on how an initiative might be framed throughout the United Kingdom. After this change, however, I am not quite sure what the Secretary of State for Scotland will do. But he will certainly say, "Don't come to me. I am not the expert on matters to do with health, education or the environment in Scotland. And even if I do have a set of priorities, I cannot in any way assert that those are the priorities which the Scottish Parliament would regard as being the important ones".
CWH 50
There seems to be a fundamental difficulty here which has not been confronted at all in the Bill as it is presently framed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that were a valid criticism, no legislation could he pursued while devolution legislation was before Parliament. If that is what the noble Lord wants, it is an interesting tactic but it is not practical politics.
In the terms in which the amendment is worded, and in so far as the amendment refers to the noble Lord's proper concerns about the National Lottery Bill rather than about the Scotland Bill—which I am certainly not capable of dealing with—I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting it forward. It affords an opportunity for the Government to explain our approach to allocating resources for the new good cause to Scotland and to the other home countries. The Government share the noble Lord's underlying concern, which is that Scotland and the other home countries should each receive their fair share, although we differ about the best means of achieving this.
The Government believe it would be incorrect to allocate resources for the new good cause by a fixed percentage or formula enshrined in statute. The new opportunities fund will be responsible for a number of initiatives which will change from time to time. As they are for different purposes, so the allocation of their funding should be on the basis of a methodology relevant to each initiative. We propose to provide for this by the directions to be issued under new Section 43C(1). For example, the information and communications technology training initiative is designed to train all teachers and librarians, so a formula based on the numbers of teachers and librarians is the obvious answer: that would be 9.9 per cent. for Scotland—unless, of course, Scotland had fewer teachers in need of information and communications technology training, in which case it might result in a smaller proportion.
We are looking for out-of-school activities across the United Kingdom, but we want a degree of focus on deprivation. That has led us to follow the National Lottery Charities Board formula at 11.5 per cent. for Scotland—more than the noble Lord proposes. The noble Lord's amendment refers to initiatives wholly in Scotland. The digitisation of content, which is part of that initiative, is of its nature national. It benefits Scotland as much as any of the other home countries. We are still working on the best methodology for healthy living centres. But it will certainly reflect both population and relative needs, because that is the way in which it has been formulated.
I hope that what I have said reassures the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. There is no hidden plot by the English to monopolise resources for the new good cause, nor indeed for any other country to receive more than its share. A case-by-case approach set by Ministers in directives, which could include following the Barnett formula where it is appropriate—and I will certainly not be responsible for any unauthorised departure from the Barnett formula—will be preferable.

CWH 51
I also point out in passing that on current figures for the existing good causes, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, anticipated, Scotland has actually done best where there is no set allocation for it. I would also add that I understand that 10; per cent. is the figure used under Barnett for dividing funds for England and Scotland only. The use of Barnett to define funds between all four home countries, as in this case, would result in a different figure for Scotland.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that his amendment would not justify a Division—even if this were not in Grand Committee—because the variety of different funding procedures which are appropriate for different good causes means that his formula is a gross over-simplification.
If I can anticipate in any way what the results of debates on the Scotland Bill may be, let me say that directions to the new opportunities fund for, for example, a Scotland-only initiative, would be the responsibility of the Scottish executive. For a UK-wide initiative, which would benefit Scotland, the Scottish executive would of course be consulted.
However, that is only scratching the surface of the very complicated issues to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention. I am grateful to him for moving the amendment and I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, but we do not believe that this simplified formula would be to the benefit of either Scotland or the good causes in general.
7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall certainly withdraw my amendment. I appreciate that, as the noble Lord has said, the 10.66 per cent. (which is part of my amendment) determines the allocation of expenditure in England and in Scotland only; it does not take into account all four countries. As I said, I may be a wee bit slow but I really find it difficult to understand how this can be part of a decentralising, devolving approach to government if important initiatives relating to health, education and the environment are going to be determined here—within the Westminster Government, whatever colour it may be—and if the Scottish parliament is not to be able to determine its priorities for health, education or the environment. It seems to me that the matter remains fundamentally flawed and I hope the noble Lord will reflect on that point before we come back to Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall, of course, reflect on it, but it may be my fault that I was oversimplifying. The first three initiatives, which we have set out in some detail, are certainly national initiatives which include Scotland, and they have to be, but that is not to say that future initiatives for the new opportunities fund could not relate entirely to Scotland and be controlled entirely by the Scottish executive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skidelskymoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 2, at end insert—
("() In section 28 of the 1993 Act (power to amend section 22) in subsection (2)(a) for "5 per cent" there shall be substituted "13; per cent".").
The noble Lord said: I, too, am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. He raised a very important question which was that, if the new good cause is simply public spending in disguise, why should it not be allocated in exactly the same way as normal public spending?
I turn now to the amendment to subsection (6). We seek to limit the power of the Secretary of State to vary the percentages going to the various good causes. Clause 28(1) of the 1993 Act gave the Secretary of State the power to lower by order to 5 per cent. the percentage of money going from the distribution fund to any good cause. In theory, the Secretary of State could decree 5 per cent. for each of the five original good causes and 75 per cent for the new good cause. That is a power that is open to him at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out that that was provided by a Conservative Government and that of course no government have been foolish enough to vary the percentages in that kind of way. At that time, however, there was no "People's Lottery". There was no good cause of the character we now have. The danger arises precisely because there is a new good cause. In view of its elastic character, we believe that it would be prudent to raise the minimum to 13; per cent. That would limit the Secretary of State's power to raid the lottery for the new good cause at the expense of the old ones. We would be failing in our duty if we did not try to find a way to prevent endless encroachments on the share going to the arts, heritage and sport.
In conclusion, all our difficulties arise from locking on to the National Lottery a new good cause with a very different character from the old good causes. I beg to move.
Baroness Rawlings: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 16. This rests on the original principle of equality as enshrined in the 1993 Act which stated that 20 per cent. should be allocated equally to each of the five good causes. We now have 164 per cent. for four good causes. The Millennium Fund will stay on 20 per cent and the new opportunities fund has 13⅓ per cent. In 1999 the Government are suggesting 20 per cent. for the new opportunities fund. That is substantially more than for the other five.
This amendment has been tabled to see whether the Government are willing to commit themselves to maintaining equality between the good causes as enshrined in the 1993 Act. It seeks to protect the old good causes. We fear that if the amendment is not included the Government will not respect the equality principle and may be induced under pressure from the Treasury to use the new opportunities fund for government spending at the expense of the old good causes.

CWH 53
We have also heard this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government have started this squabble between the good causes by breaking the equality principle. It cannot be a happy situation and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I rise to support the amendment. I wish that my noble friend Lord Skidelsky had not adopted this horrid phrase, the "People's Lottery".
Lord Skidelsky: Ironically.
Lord Crickhowell: I am glad to hear my noble friend take the opportunity of saying that that was ironic. Curiously, the original lottery with the original good causes might well have been defined as the "People's Lottery". Now that it has been taken over as a means of funding other Treasury responsibilities, it becomes less and less the "People's Lottery". But it is a horrid term, which is being used in the most indiscriminate and absurd way by the Government, and the sooner it comes to an end, the better.
However, that is not what I rose to say. This is a very useful amendment because it provides an alternative to the solution that the Minister so curtly rejected earlier. The Minister suggested that some of us had said that it was wrong to spend lottery funding on health, education and the environment. I do not think that any of us has ever suggested that. Indeed, one only has to look at the way in which the existing funding bodies have distributed their resources to see that they have spent money on causes that can be defined in that way. Equally, the Minister is absolutely right to say that providing strict definitions and such separation is extremely difficult. It is very hard to write that into a Bill. The Heritage Lottery Fund has been helping us to catch up on expenditure on buildings neglected by a whole succession of governments over the years. Sometimes governments found it possible to do one-off things which were not in the normal pattern of expenditure. I take some pride in having found around £23 million to build the magnificent new galleries for the National Museum of Wales. That was rather outside the line of normal arts expenditure but it was possible. The Minister is absolutely right, one can say that comes within the area that can be defined as the responsibility of government.
However, having failed to produce an effective definition that deals with that problem, we now have an alternative, which is a percentage restriction on the amount you can reduce the existing funding. That seems to be quite an effective way of doing it. It removes all the problems of definition dealt with so fiercely by the Minister, and provides another safeguard that the existing funding bodies—we may apply percentages to all six now—at least will have their percentages retained, and we cannot have the expenditures whittled away and funds transferred to whatever happens to be the favourite government interest of the day. It might be argued that that could create a situation where in due course—when all the buildings have been improved and all the possible new buildings have been constructed—one or other bodies might find it difficult to find good causes to support. Earlier the Minister referred to the
CWH 54
switch from buildings to people. I must say that is tentative in this Bill; it is only a small start to what is, I think, a desirable process. I was not able to speak at Second Reading—I was not able to be here—but I would have said then that I regret that we have not gone further down this road.
I think we shall soon have splendid theatres, opera houses and museums, but find it extremely difficult to fund the things that go on inside them. That ought to be increasingly the responsibility of lottery funding over and above the normal spend of government in the years ahead. It is a way out of the dilemma for government. I think there will be plenty of opportunity for these bodies to go on finding good causes. If we cannot define the provision by saying that you cannot create any more good causes or you should not be spending the money on education and health because they are the normal functions of government, we ought to look quite seriously at providing the kind of safeguards suggested in these two amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, without meaning to, has made exactly the point that I so inadequately tried to make in response to previous amendments. When he says that these amendments—by restricting the ability of governments to apply flexibility to the percentages for the good causes—remove the problems of definition, he reveals precisely why it is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding among the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats as to what is meant by additionality.
He is saying that, provided we keep the same proportions with regard to the six good causes—he would probably rather say, like the noble Lord, Lord Monro, the five good causes—no question of additionality arises because there is no question of additionality in the five good causes. The problem of additionality arises, on his argument, only because we are introducing the sixth good cause. That reveals exactly the fallacy in the Opposition argument because, as I tried to make clear—obviously inadequately—there is core expenditure in the arts, sport and heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has made that even clearer by describing how additional galleries for the national Museum of Wales were funded by the Exchequer with the £3 million that he himself found. Does that mean that further galleries to the National Museum of Wales should not be funded from lottery money because the money has already been found from the Exchequer? Of course not. The answer to all of these points is that the expenditure of lottery money on the arts, sport, heritage, the millennium or charities may or may not be additional, may or may not pass the test of additionality, and that expenditure on health, the environment and education may or may not pass the test of additionality. Any claim that the addition of the new good cause in itself breaches the cause of additionality is a false claim.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: Everything the Minister has said so far has involved this horrid word "additionality" and has attempted to define it. I accept it. I made the point

CWH 55
that it was impossible to define; we discovered that earlier. I merely say—not pressing the case now on grounds of a strict definition of "additionality" or on an interpretation of the phrase—that we are simply seeking to safeguard the percentages given to various good causes. I have to tell the Minister that what he has said in both his speeches has added to, not reduced, the alarm that I feel because he has broken so free of any constraint and any government commitment. He has virtually said, "We can spend whatever we like on any subject because you can't define it; government ought to be free to do that; we ought to have total flexibility". That is exactly why we want to include some constraints in the legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The reverse is the case. What I have said is that the Government have consistently renewed their commitment to the principle of additionality. If the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, does not like the word, there is nothing very much I can do about that. We are saying that the principle of additionality could be breached in expenditure in any of the spheres of the five existing good causes, and it could be breached in this sphere of the new opportunities fund. However, the addition of a new opportunities fund—and that is the only change that is taking place here because there is no reference otherwise to the breaching of additionality—does not represent any stage on any slippery slope towards the abandonment of additionality.
Apart from the additionality argument, what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, are seeking to do in these amendments is to change not this legislation, but the 1993 Act. They are quite open about it. They are saying that, despite the fact that there has been (as far as I know) no abuse of the distribution between the existing good causes in the years since the 1993 Act was passed—there has been no pressure by or on government to change the percentages despite the ability provided in the Act to reduce any individual good cause down to 5 per cent.—that flexibility which is available to the Government should now be taken away. In other words, they are saying that although the previous government could be trusted, this Government cannot be trusted. I hope I have made it clear that this Government are at least as well aware as the previous government of the power of the defenders of the existing good cause to kick up an almighty fuss if anybody were to implement the provision which allows for a reduction to 5 per cent. in the amount going to any good cause. For that reason, I hope that noble Lords will not pursue these amendments.
I have a particular point on Amendment No. 16 which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and which is extremely ingenious. If my arithmetic is correct, she has ensured that the shares of the existing good causes, on the winding-up of the millennium stream, would be increased by just 0.1 per cent each. I understand that this is around £1 million a year which is big money to me, if not to some other noble Lords, but it is a very small amount in relation to the total funds available. In any case, it
CWH 56
could be overturned under Section 28 of the 1993 Act. I would like to see that issue debated in the House on an affirmative order.
The intention of the then Government and Parliament in 1993 was not to limit too greatly the ability of Ministers, with the consent of Parliament, through the affirmative procedure, to vary the percentage shares of the good causes. It recognised that there were all sorts of circumstances, not foreseeable at the time of legislation, which might mean there was a strong case for increasing or decreasing the shares of particular good causes, without the inflexibility and delays which would be caused if primary legislation were necessary. This amendment would remove that flexibility and it is as undesirable now as it was then.
Lord Skidelsky: I agree with the Minister. We are proposing a change to the 1993 Act, but the need for that change arises precisely to deal with the problem of the new good cause which did not exist at the time of the 1993 Act. The Minister persists in closing his eyes to something which we on this side regard as self-evident: that the new good cause is of a different character from the old good causes. We have not been very successful in our attempts to define exactly what the distinction is, but it is evident to us that it is not the same kind of good cause as the other good causes. Therefore, the pressure to increase spending on this cause is much greater than that experienced with respect to the other good causes. We would like to limit that pressure, to ensure that lottery money does not encroach on the other causes. It is a new problem and it requires a new solution, which is why we want to go beyond the 1993 Act. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I may return to it at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 7, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: I shall try to be brief, but we have come to an important issue and I am sorry we have reached it so late. This is the problem of retrospection. Let me deal briefly with Amendment No. 18 which seeks to exclude childcare and living and social environment from the definition of education and the environment. These, and especially the second, give statutory warrant for the endless widening of the remit of the good cause, which is why we propose its deletion.
What do we mean by "living and social environment"? Surely, practically all our human activities are included under that head. If we regard that as a fit object for a new cause, we face an endless cascade of lottery money going on it, and that is why we seek to limit the Secretary of State's power. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before I respond to the amendment, perhaps I may say something about the noble Lord's comment on timing and it being late? It certainly now appears that we will not get through the business we had hoped to deal with today because of

CWH 57
the logistical difficulties, particularly for Hansard, in carrying on beyond 7.45 p.m. However, it certainly is not the Government's intention that we should seek to hurry the Committee in any way. If we do not finish the Bill by the end of business this Thursday, we are perfectly prepared to see that there should be a third day for the Grand Committee in the Moses Room. We do not wish in any way for noble Lords on the Opposition Benches or anywhere else to be inhibited in debate on legislation. That would be entirely contrary to the tradition of this House.
In response to the amendment which has just been moved, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say why the Government think that the expanded definitions are necessary. There certainly is nothing sinister or unusual in these definitions. We often have definitions of this kind and there are several others in the course of the Bill. We decided that we needed those definitions to eliminate beyond any doubt the possibility that an over-restricted judicial interpretation of the words "education" and "environment" might in the future get in the way of an initiative which was generally agreed to be helpful.
The Government believe that education is not a narrowly defined process which takes place only in the classroom or lecture hall. When we come to look at the amendments to Clause 11 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, it will be clear that we do not believe the environment is limited to the preservation of the physical, natural environment, important though that is. Our approach goes much wider. We would like the fund to be able to support a range of possible initiatives which would improve the surroundings in which people live. Although the definitions appear to be minor, if we lose them we would be reducing the lottery's scope to fund a wide range of useful activities, which is one of the fundamental objectives of our policy.
CWH 58
I take the example of childcare. It was always envisaged as part of our out-of-school hours initiative (page 10 of the White Paper) that:
"By providing safe and stimulating activities with appropriate supervision outside the school day, out-of-school hours activities could also help support working parents who need childcare and thus contribute to our national childcare strategy".
The announcements made in November are entirely consistent with that. But of course what happens in out-of-school hours activities will be a mixture of childcare, of education, of play and of all sorts of things, depending on the needs of the children in that particular childcare out-of-school centre. To have definitions which are too narrow could in the future be very damaging to the aspects that the new opportunities fund would wish to support and which the public generally would wish to see supported. As I say, I do not believe that there is anything at all threatening in the definitions which are included and which this amendment would take out.
Lord Skidelsky: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.28 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): There is a Division in the Chamber and we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Lord Skidelsky: I understand that the Committee intends to adjourn at 7.45 p.m. Is there any point in coming back for five minutes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be a convenient moment, therefore, to adjourn until Thursday next at 4 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock until Thursday next at four o'clock.

  Strategic Defence Review: Submissions
  Strategic Defence Review: Submissions
  Iraq: Co-operation with UNSCOM
  Iraq: Co-operation with UNSCOM
  European Social Fund: Grants to London Boroughs
  European Social Fund: Grants to London Boroughs
  Youth Crime: Ethnic Monitoring
  Youth Crime: Ethnic Monitoring
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  UK Aid to International Small Scale Business Sector
  UK Aid to International Small Scale Business Sector
  Town and Country Planning: Policy
  Town and Country Planning: Policy
  Road Traffic Reduction Act: Draft Guidance
  Road Traffic Reduction Act: Draft Guidance
  Cavity Wall Insulation: Research Report
  Cavity Wall Insulation: Research Report
  London: Transport Funding from EU
  London: Transport Funding from EU
  Lowlands Canals: Repair Project
  Lowlands Canals: Repair Project
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  BSE and nvCJD: Inquiry
  BSE and nvCJD: Inquiry
  BSE: Animal Experiments
  BSE: Animal Experiments
  Sheep Carcases for Sale: Preparation
  Sheep Carcases for Sale: Preparation
  Fisheries Council, Brussels, 18-19 December 1997
  Fisheries Council, Brussels, 18-19 December 1997
  MAGP IV: UK Objectives
  MAGP IV: UK Objectives